Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Shipyard Workers, Southampton

Mr. Ralph Morley: asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been drawn to the increase of unemployment in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries in Southampton; and what steps he proposes to take to meet this situation.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Unemployment in Southampton among shipyard workers rose sharply in September, but I am glad to say that there has since been a considerable fall. Moreover, a large number of those still unemployed are expected to start work very shortly when recruitment of workers for the winter overhaul of liners begins. This work is expected to last until next February. By that time, there is a reasonable prospect of suitable alternative employment for workers not then required on ship-repairing work.

Mr. Morley: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the steamship "Isle of Jersey," which is normally handled at Southampton Docks has been diverted to a private yard? Can he consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to see that this does not occur again?

Mr. Isaacs: I am not quite sure what authority the Minister of Transport has in the matter, but I will most certainly consult him about it.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the general uneasiness in different parts of the country in regard to this matter of shipbuilding cannot the Minister of Labour arrange a special conference of those concerned

with shipbuilding in order to work out a plan of some kind to ensure the greatest possible distribution of the work?

Mr. Isaacs: I cannot say anything about a general conference covering all the shipyards but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is having the very sincere attention of the Government Departments concerned.

Mr. Awbery: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the extreme competition in shipbuilding which we have from the Continent, because conditions of labour and wages there are lower than they are in this country? Will he do something with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to improve conditions and to increase wages on the other side?

Mr. Isaacs: My writ does not run as far as that. The main work of repairing war-damaged ships has now been completed.

Vocational Training (Grants)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour why training grants paid by his Department to photographic students at the Guildford School of Art now run only one year.

Mr. Isaacs: These grants are paid until the trainee reaches a standard at which he can obtain satisfactory employment. The intermediate examinations of the Institute of British Photographers and the City and Guilds of London Institute are adopted as that standard which normally takes a year to reach. Grants can, however, be extended in exceptional cases where it is not attained in that time.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not a fact that the course in respect of which these grants were paid lasts two years? Is it not also a fact that the Minister of Education pays students for whom he is responsible, and who are doing precisely the same course, in respect of a two-year period? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why he regards as ranking for grant only half the period which is so regarded by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education?

Mr. Isaacs: All I can say is that we have accepted the one-year basis since 1947 and that all applicants who have applied for the course since that date have


been told that it is for one year only, unless in exceptional circumstances it has to be extended.

Mr. Frank Byers: asked the Minister of Labour why his vocational training scheme to provide for the permanent settlement into civilian life of men and women whose lives have been interrupted by war service does not provide grants for those who wish to become journalists unless they are disabled persons.

Mr. Isaacs: The arrangements for vocational training schemes in different industries are worked out in full consultation with the representative organisations of employers and workpeople concerned. In this case I have not yet been able to secure the agreement of the appropriate Joint Industrial Council to a training scheme except for disabled persons. Able-bodied persons cannot therefore at present be accepted for training under this scheme.

Mr. Byers: While I thank the Minister for that reply, may I ask him if he will continue to negotiate and see if it is possible to help those who have come out of the Services and have a flair for journalism to get some sort of assistance?

Mr. Isaacs: I cannot say that I will specialise in journalism, but we will continue our efforts with this industry to see if we can get a further agreement.

Manchester

Squadron-Leader Fleming: asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed there were in the city of Manchester on 30th September, 1949.

Mr. Isaacs: Figures are not available for 30th September. At 10th October the total was 4,523.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are more than 2,000 unemployed among the coloured population in Manchester and that their leader has alleged that a colour bar has been raised against them as regards getting employment? Has he any evidence of that?

Mr. Isaacs: If the hon. and gallant Member had put that question down I could have answered it. I have answered the Question which he put on the Paper.

Smithfield Market (Inquiry)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Labour why he has delayed several weeks before calling a conference to investigate the reasons for the "go-slow" tactics in Smithfield Market.

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Member misunderstands the position. The "go-slow" tactics were abandoned by the
men following a meeting on 11th October last and arrears of distribution have been cleared since.
The issue of the 6d. meat bonus in London, however, still remains in dispute. It is in relation to that difficulty that I have appointed a Committee of Investigation following an unsuccessful conference which an officer of my Department held with the parties on 1st November.

Mr. Gammans: The fact is that the people of London have not got their meat. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that his primary duty and responsibility is not to any trade union but to the people of London, and has he not sufficient powers to see that this meat is actually distributed to them?

Mr. Isaacs: The fact is that the hon. Gentleman has not got his facts right. [Interruption.] Give me a chance to answer. The fact is that my Department made contact with the parties in this dispute, and within four days arranged a conference. That conference was unsuccessful. Then within seven days of the start of the dispute we had arranged a series of meetings under one of our conciliation officers, and it was one of those meetings that led to the "go-slow" dispute ending. With regard to the bonus, we brought the parties together as soon as the other matter was cleared out of the way, and I am hopeful that the board of inquiry will reach a satisfactory solution.

Mr. Mellish: Is it not true that when the amount of meat in the market was reduced, something like 30 per cent. of the men were discharged and that when the meat was increased, the men, quite rightly, asked for the staff to be increased to do the job, or for increased payment and that the employers, taking the attitude which they usually do in these matters, did not give them either? When we are talking about this matter we should not overlook that it involves the employers too.

Mr. Isaacs: Those are some of the allegations made against one side or the other for which we found no real foundation, and we have appointed the committtee of inquiry to ascertain the real facts.

Commander Noble: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects this inquiry to report? As the Minister of Food told us yesterday, the meat is there and its delivery is awaiting the report.

Mr. Isaacs: Judging by experience of similar committees of inquiry on matters of this kind, I should not be surprised if it reported to me immediately after it has ascertained the facts.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Is not the principal and most important fact that the Minister of Food has on many occasions promised the bonus to the people of London and that he is unable to deliver it on account of the action of the Smithfield porters who are holding a Minister of the Crown up to a greater degree of ridicule and contempt than would otherwise be the case?

Mr. Isaacs: As I have said before, I am not prepared to accept the view that all the blame is on the men.

Mr. Gallacher: It cannot be blamed on the Communists.

Hon. Members: Why not?

Moulders' Union Members (Newspaper Reports)

Mr. H. D. Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been drawn to a threatened dispute at the factory of Messrs. Mathew Harvey & Co., Walsall, arising from objections by shop stewards to the choice of daily newspapers by employees in the factory; and what action he is taking.

Mr. William Wells: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make regarding the industrial dispute at the works of Messrs. Harvey, Matthew and Co., Ltd., of Walsall; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Hughes: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. The name of the firm as given in my Question is the "News Chronicle" version, the correct name is as in the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells).

Mr. Isaacs: My inquiries into this story that appeared in the "Daily Mail" and the "News Chronicle" indicate that it is entirely without foundation. In fairness to the workers and the firm, I should add that my information is that the relationship between them is of a most harmonious character.

Mr. Hughes: Was not this a most irresponsible and provocative attempt to discredit the trade unionists concerned with false evidence endangering industrial peace? Has my right hon. Friend any power to protect industry from this kind of misrepresentation for which no apology whatsoever has so far been made?

Mr. Isaacs: I do not know that I have any power to prevent the newspapers telling these stories, but I think it is regrettable that, although these newspapers have given front page notice to this allegation, they should not at least have had the decency to admit that they were wrong.

Mr. Wells: While I thank my hon. Friend for his statement, may I ask him if he is aware that these reports have caused great indignation in Walsall, and does he not consider that the whole episode throws a somewhat ironical light on the report of the Royal Commission that this country has the best Press in the world?

Mr. Isaacs: I can only say in answer to that question that it has caused a great deal of inconvenience, I know, to the firm and unpleasantness to the men of the union concerned. When they first saw the story, thinking it might be true, the firm at once got out an instruction to their people that such conduct could not be tolerated. They did not issue that instruction upon finding that not only had there been a mis-statement about the attitude of the men, but that one of the newspapers even reported the story that they had contacted the head office of the union that night, though nothing of that sort had taken place.

Mr. Byers: In fairness, will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he can, from his own information, confirm that the statements reported in the "News Chronicle" were, in fact, made to the "News Chronicle" reporter by a representative of Messrs. Harvey, Matthew & Co., and that if there was ground for


making an apology, that responsible newspaper would have made it? Will he confirm to the House that inquiries are still proceeding?

Mr. Isaacs: I am sorry, but it is not for me to express an opinion. A newspaper ought to accept responsibility for the statements it has made. When the firm notified that newspaper the same day that they had made a mistake, decency at least should have led them to publish a correction.

Mr. Byers: When the right hon. Gentleman refers to a mistake having been made, will he not confirm to the House that the statement which was reported in the "News Chronicle" was made by a representative of the firm and that it has not been denied that these statements were made to the "News Chronicle" reporter?

Mr. Isaacs: No such allegation has been made to me. As far as I understand it, the firm deny that anything of the sort has been done, and if the "News Chronicle" have such a story, why should they hide behind it? Why do they not make the statement?

Mr. Collins: In view of the last answer, can my right hon. Friend say if he has discovered what the actual source of the rumour was, and, if so, will it now be disclosed?

Mr. Isaacs: The firm say, and the men say, that they know nothing whatever about it and that nothing even of a colourable nature, could have given rise to such a statement. The whole thing is a malicious concoction.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is right in making a statement like that in view of the fact that there is definite evidence that the information supplied to the "News Chronicle" came from a responsible member of the firm.

Mr. Isaacs: If there is any definite evidence, it is for the "News Chronicle" to produce it.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: On that point of Order, Mr. Speaker, are we not now proceeding beyond the range of the Minister's responsibility? As I understand it, these are questions to the Minister of Labour arising out of the

original dispute. With respect to you, Sir, and I ask your Ruling upon it, I submit that the recent supplementary questions and answers have really been in the nature of a court of inquiry upon the behaviour of two newspapers. Is that within the purview of responsibility of the Minister?

Mr. Blackburn: Further to that point of Order, may I advert—[HON. MEMBLRS: "No."]—to the point of Order I raised yesterday which, in my submission, is a point of vital importance in the protection of the rights of hon. Members of this House, and which I should have expected the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) to confirm. Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells) stated, and it has now been confirmed by the Minister, that the whole story was—I quote his words, "a complete fabrication from beginning to end." Yet, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend was in the position that I was in, that if he put down any Question on the Order Paper asking the Minister to inquire into these allegations, he was Ruled as being out of Order and he was therefore told—I agree that these are the Rules—that he must accept the story which had been put in the newspaper. He has done so, and so has my hon. Friend the Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes).
Hon. Members are often in this difficulty, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask you whether you could not consider that there might be some slight extension of the Rules so that this matter could be raised from the beginning on a proper basis, namely, upon the fact that the allegation had been widely circularised, could have had adverse effects, and was untrue?

Mr. Speaker: In regard to the first point of Order, I think the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) is correct. Our Questions are getting far beyond the responsibility of the Minister.
With regard to the second point of Order, the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) is either casting aspersions on the Rules of the House or on the bona fides of the hon. Members who have asked these Questions. One cannot have questions allowed which refer to allegations. I do not know where


it would stop. One might search the columns of all the newspapers and find allegations, and what Minister is to be responsible for allegations in the newspapers? One must, therefore, take responsibility on oneself for asking a question, and I must Rule that there is no point of Order in what the hon. Member says.

Mr. Blackburn: Further to that point of Order, I only want to say this—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that I had no desire to cast any aspersions on my hon. Friend, for whom I have the greatest admiration and, secondly, I only desired to draw attention to the fact that hon. Members are in this difficulty.

Mr. Speaker: Both hon. Members, having accepted responsibility, were able to bring the matter before the House, which seemed to me quite satisfactory.

Mr. Gallacher: There are slanders on the Communist idea every day.

Mr. Wells: Referring to the original Question, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Building Workers, Scotland

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the decline in numbers of workers employed on house building in Scotland and the shortage of houses, what steps he is taking to retain and improve the supply of labour.

Mr. Isaacs: A steady flow of labour to housing contracts is being maintained, and I am satisfied that the size of the building labour force in Scotland will be adequate to meet the programme.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that if he is satisfied, nobody else is in Scotland?

Mr. Niall Macpherson: Could the Minister say what steps he is taking to get the supply of plasterers in Scotland increased?

Mr. Isaacs: It is not a question of the supply of plasterers so much as the proper routine of their working and the need to "stagger" them because their next job is not ready.

Pottery Industry (Italians)

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the Minister of Labour what stage has been reached in the negotiations for the employment of Italian decorators in the pottery industry.

Mr. Isaacs: The National Joint Industrial Council for the pottery industry are considering this matter and are to discuss certain detailed points with my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE (AGRICULTURAL WORKERS)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Labour what changes it is intended to make in the present arrangements under which agricultural workers are not called up for service in the Forces.

Mr. Isaacs: It has been decided to continue for another year the present arrangements under which the call-up of bona fide agricultural workers is deferred so long as they continue to be satisfactorily employed in that industry.

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Labour if he will ensure that skilled rural craftsmen, such as agricultural engineers whose services are indispensable to food production, will be reserved from National Service on the recommendation of the county agricultural executive committee.

Mr. Isaacs: Deferment of call-up of rural craftsmen, such as blacksmiths or wheelwrights, living in country districts, is granted, in exceptional cases, where there is evidence that the withdrawal of their services would seriously interfere with food production. I am not, however, prepared to extend this special arrangement to workers in the engineering industry who may be employed on the manufacture or general repair of agricultural machinery, to whom the same considerations do not apply.

Mr. Hurd: Is not the Minister aware that the men of whom he has spoken who are repairing and servicing agricultural machinery are really key men in the agricultural industry? Will he look at this again to see if he can use the machinery which is in operation for reserving farm workers and thus have these men reserved?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. The arrangements are working satisfactorily.

Mr. Hurd: They are not.

Mr. Isaacs: This is a difference of opinion and I stick to my opinion. The county agricultural committees can make representations to their Ministry who then bring the matter to our notice, and if they make the recommendation that it is essential for a man to be deferred, he is so deferred.

Mr. David Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the withdrawal of agricultural engineers will directly hamper the mechanical efficiency upon which the Government's programme so greatly depends? Will he say whether he has consulted his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture about this important point?

Mr. Isaacs: It cannot really be argued that the withdrawal of a young man of 17 or 18 years of age from an agricultural engineering shop in an engineering centre will entail any real hardship for anyone.

Mr. Baldwin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a much more serious problem than he seems to think? A withdrawal may well lead to unemployment for those men who rely on the repair of machinery. In my constituency several cases have arisen where key men have been called up and it has not been possible to replace them. Will the right hon. Gentleman give this matter further consideration?

Mr. Isaacs: I can only say that whenever a case is brought to our attention where it is impossible to replace a man in a rural area like that, deferment is granted to him.

Mr. Hurd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this concerns not young men of 17 or 18 but men who have completed their apprenticeship? They are skilled men.

Mr. Isaacs: That means that they have already had the advantage of deferment when they exercised their choice earlier.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Housing

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the growing number of small apartment houses being offered now for sale at exorbitant prices; and since he has made it impossible for local authorities to requisition such houses for people in need, what further steps are contemplated to enable local authorities to deal with this situation.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): Cases of small houses being sold are brought to my notice from time to time but I have no information that this is increasing to any great extent. I shall be glad to have any particulars which my hon. Friend can give me. As regards the rest of the Question, this matter is now in the hands of local authorities who have powers under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1949, to acquire and improve premises with Exchequer assistance.

Mrs. Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these houses are not worth improving, that the prices asked are exorbitant, and that no local authority would be justified in paying these prices for houses that are not worth improving?

Mr. Woodburn: I think my hon. Friend will agree that if the houses are not worth improving, it is not worth the Government using State money to requisition them.

Mr. McGovern: Apart from that, where the local authority has power, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of quite good houses have been empty for some time and are being offered for sale instead of being let to tenants, and would he direct the attention of the Glasgow authority again to this growing practice?

Mr. Woodburn: I should think that the Glasgow authority know the position but it is open to any citizen to bring that position to the notice of the Glasgow authority, who certainly know their powers.

Mrs. Mann: I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the position, I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new permanent houses he expects to complete in Scotland by the end of 1949.

Mr. Woodburn: A total of 18,745 new permanent houses was completed in the first three quarters of this year. I am not prepared to make an estimate of the number likely to be completed in the last quarter.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an estimate at least was made at the beginning of this year, and how far does he expect he will have realised that hopeful estimate of 26,000 to 28,000 houses by the end of this year?

Mr. Woodburn: Guesswork is as easy for the hon. Member as it is for me. The building trade is subject to many vicissitudes from weather and other things which nobody can foretell. It would simply be guesswork on my part to say what the weather would be between now and 1st January.

Government Farms (Accounts)

Mr. McKie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can state the trading losses or profits for 1947 and 1948 on the four farms owned and run by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland at Dunragit, Wigtownshire.

Mr. Woodburn: The profit for the year ended 30th November, 1947, was £3,411, The 1948 results will be included in the accounts for 16 months to 31st March, 1949, which are now being prepared.

Mr. McKie: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that information, and expressing the hope that this year will be equally good, may I ask him if it is the intention of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland to convert one of these four farms, namely, Kilfillan, into smallholdings?

Mr. Woodburn: That is another question and a matter for consideration.

School Meals

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will empower local authorities to make an additional contribution from their funds to school meals and so obviate the increase of a penny per meal falling on the parents.

Mr. Woodburn: The policy of the Government is that, apart from payments made by parents towards the cost of the food, full financial responsibility for the necessary cost of school meals should be borne by the Exchequer and not by the local authority. I do not regard the small increase in the charge as justifying any departure from that policy.

Economy Measures

Sir William Darling: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent the proposed reductions in capital expenditure will affect rural housing, rural water supplies and rural roads.

Mr. Woodburn: As regards expenditure on housing, including rural housing, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made on 1st November. As regards the public water programme, later starting dates will be fixed for certain new schemes, but no interference with existing schemes is contemplated. Expenditure on rural roads in the Highlands and Islands for which my Department is responsible will be maintained at its present level during 1950.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of these two Questions, has the Secretary of State for Scotland taken any steps to have the cuts discussed by the Scottish Grand Committee?

Commander Galbraith: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making a comprehensive statement as to the effects on Scotland of the economies which the Government have proposed?

Mr. Woodburn: Hon. Gentlemen seem anxious to discover cuts in Scotland which have not taken place. The Government are not making what are called "slashing attacks" on Scotland; savings will be effected in Scotland which, as I explained last week, are being spread over a large number of the activities of the Government and in capital expenditure. It is not really possible to gather all these items into what is called "a comprehensive statement."

Mr. MacLeod: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the tremendous leeway which the Highlands of Scotland have to make up—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—and that further expenditure is necessary and desirable in the national interest?

Mr. Woodburn: I am sure the hon. Member could not have heard my reply, which stated that the Government are going ahead as fast as possible with the rural roads in Scotland and that no interference is taking place in that programme. The difficulty in the Highlands is that we can only do work for which the labour and materials are available.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend as satisfied as his colleague the Minister of Labour that there is a sufficient labour force in Scotland to deal with the problem of building houses for the rural areas?

Commander Galbraith: Does the answer of the Secretary of State mean that he cannot say where these economies are to fall and what effect they will have on Scotland?

Mr. Woodburn: The Government are effecting a certain saving in Scotland, in such a way as to interfere to the minimum extent with current progress. Each saving, therefore, is a matter of very great judgment and delicacy and not a matter which can be dealt with by figures thrown over at Question time.

Agricultural Production

Sir W. Darling: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the annual production of potatoes, turnips and barley; and what plans he has to increase this production.

Mr. Woodburn: On the basis of current needs I shall be satisfied if the production of potatoes in Scotland continues at its present level. The production of turnips is a matter I can safely leave to the farmers themselves. I am hoping for an increase in the barley acreage, and have asked the agricultural executive committees to do all in their power to ensure this.

Sir W. Darling: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the acreage of oats in Scotland in 1939, 1943 and 1949, respectively; and what steps he is taking to maintain and increase the production of this unique Scottish product.

Mr. Woodburn: The acreage of oats in Scotland in these years was as follows: 1939, 777,000 acres; 1943, 1,011,000 acres; 1949, 931,000 acres.
Under the Government's agricultural expansion programme an increased acreage of this crop is looked for. I have recently asked agricultural executive committees to do all in their power to increase the acreage devoted to this crop, amongst others, and the assistance of the National Farmers' Union for Scotland has been enlisted.

Sir W. Darling: Would the right hon. Gentleman continually bear in mind that the consumption of oats in this country is 8 lb. per head, whereas the consumption of wheat is 240 lb. per head, and that we can produce all our oats in Scotland but only half our wheat?

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Member has called attention to the deficiency in dietary education, and no doubt his question will do something to improve the position.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman make quite certain that no area in Scotland is allotted for the growing of groundnuts?

Bellahouston Park (Re-opening)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the reason for the delay in the re-opening of Bellahouston Park to the public.

Mr. Woodburn: The whole of the park has been returned to Glasgow Corporation except two small portions still held under requisition. It has not been possible to release one portion because of the presence of squatters in disused Army huts on the site. All but one of the families, however, have now been transferred elsewhere and as soon as other accommodation can be found for the remaining family I shall arrange to have the site released. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works is arranging to have the other portion, on which the palace of industry stands, cleared, and as soon as this has been effected the land will be derequisitioned.

Commander Galbraith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Works informed me in April, 1948, that he would make his part of the park available to the public of Glasgow by August, 1948, and in these circumstances will the Secretary of State take some urgent action with his right hon. Friend?

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. and gallant Member confirms what was said by Burns:
The best laid schemes o' mice and men Gang aft a-gley.

Forestry and Hydro-Electric Schemes

Sir Basil Neven-Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that a meeting was held recently at Inverness between representatives of the Scottish Land and Property Federation, the branches and area branches of the National Farmers' Union and members of the Northern Pastoral Club to consider the serious curtailment of food and wool production which will result from the present and future operations of the Forestry Commission and the Hydro-Electric Board; and whether he will agree to receive a deputation from the former bodies which are prepared to submit evidence in support of their contention.

Mr. Woodburn: I have seen Press reports of the meeting referred to. The operations of the Forestry Commission and the Hydro-Electric Board are carried on with close regard to agricultural interests and I am satisfied that they will bring benefits to the Highlands out of all proportion to such losses of agricultural land as are involved. While I shall be glad to receive a deputation, or to consider written representations, about any individual projects that may be causing concern, it will be appreciated that in the case of hydro-electric development the Board's powers are defined in schemes approved by Parliament after the fullest opportunity for the making and consideration of objections.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the hydro-electric schemes which are to be postponed.

Mr. Woodburn: I am not at present in a position to add to the statement on this subject which I made on 1st November.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Is not the Minister aware that the statement he made on 1st November was simply that he was postponing certain schemes which had not yet been started, and can he not tell us what those schemes are?

Mr. Woodburn: I see no cause for alarm that we are postponing schemes which we have not yet started. No interference is being made in the schemes at present in operation, and postponement is one of the methods by which we are effecting a saving without really injuring the progress of the country.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Is the Minister aware that there is general doubt whether a scheme starts when the plans are approved, when the camps are made for the labourers or when the first sod is turned; and what schemes are affected?

Mr. Woodburn: My advice to those who are doing their work in these districts is to carry on doing their work until somebody interferes with them.

Aged People (Meals Service)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the cost of the service, he will consider introducing legislation to enable him to make grants to local authorities for the Meals on Wheels service to aged people.

Mr. Woodburn: This service is not a direct charge on local authorities although they are encouraged to subsidise voluntary organisations for such purposes. I have no evidence that authorities are finding this a heavy burden and I do not contemplate any early revision of the Exchequer grant to their funds.

Mrs. Mann: Do I understand that local authorities in Scotland are already empowered to provide this service, and how many are doing so?

Mr. Woodburn: As my hon. Friend knows, I recently sent out a circular to local authorities asking them to use their good offices to encourage voluntary organisations to undertake assistance to old people and look after their welfare generally, including this particular service.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

War Pensioners (Sterling Exchange Rate)

Colonel Dower: asked the Minister of Pensions if he can now state the steps he proposes to take to assist war pensioners living in dollar and hard currency countries in view of devaluation.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Marquand): The Government have decided in principle to help individual war pensioners resident in dollar and other hard currency countries who are experiencing severe hardship as the result of the recent fall in the value of sterling. Details of the necessary arrangements are being worked out.

Colonel Dower: While I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask if we can be told when this help for people who are in a very precarious position is likely to arrive?

Mr. Marquand: The payment of help has already been authorised but as we have to work in these countries through the very valued help of their own local administrations it is a little too early for yet to say what type of cases come to hand.

Mr. William Teeling: Could not the Minister get into touch with the Foreign Office, who have already worked out a scheme for their staff abroad, to see whether the same methods could not be used in this matter?

Mr. Marquand: That is a rather different matter; it is a question of the Civil Service staffs involved in those countries. In the present case, we have to find details of individuals and ascertain what kind of hardship they are suffering. We are collecting the information very rapidly.

Prescriptions (Charge)

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will accept liability for the new cost for prescriptions, as was done before the National Health Act was passed, for chronically disabled ex-Service men suffering from duodenal and similar troubles due to war service.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Pensions whether prescription fees will be required from disabled ex-Service pensioners for treatment of the disability in respect of which the pension was awarded.

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Pensions what method will be adopted to ensure that war-pensioners who are receiving treatment for pensionable disability will be exempt from the charge which is to be made for prescriptions.

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Pensions if he can give an assurance that the proposed charge for medicines prescribed under the National Health service will not adversely affect the rights to free medicine enjoyed before the National Health Service Act by disabled ex-Service men and women.

Mr. Marquand: The pensions instruments ensure free treatment—including medicines and dressings—for war pensioners for their pensioned disabilities. I shall continue to discharge this obligation. Detailed arrangements will be announced when a change has been made in the existing provisions of the National Health Service.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: While thanking the Minister for that answer, may I ask if he will take special care to ensure that doctors and chemists, as well as ex-Service men, are made acquainted with this very valuable concession?

Mr. Marquand: Until my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has made his regulations, it is hardly possible for me to say exactly how my obligations will be discharged.

Sir I. Fraser: Is it not a fact that the change in the law will have to be provided in the amending health Measure now going through another place? Will an opportunity be afforded to prevent the amendment barring these men, even for a short time?

Mr. Marquand: I think it is too early to say precisely in what form we shall make the provision, but provision will be made in accordance with the Royal Warrant.

Mr. Collins: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the change in respect of disabled men, whatever may be necessary, will coincide with the introduction of the restrictions?

Mr. Marquand: Certainly, disabled men have never, during the last 30 years, failed to receive the free treatment and they will not fail now.

Film (Cost)

Mr. Drayson: asked the Minister of Pensions what will be the cost to the taxpayer of the film which is being produced, dealing with the work of his Department.

Mr. Marquand: About £8,500.

Mr. Drayson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is appearing personally in this film and whether the script of the dialogue will be made available so that hon. Members can see whether it contains party propaganda or not?

Mr. Marquand: The film has not yet been made. Whether I shall appear in it, I cannot say, but if the hon. Member, or any of his hon. Friends, wish to decide whether it contains party propaganda, I shall be most happy to extend an invitation to them to see the first showing.

Mr. Chetwynd: How many films have been made for my right hon. Friend's Department?

Mr. Marquand: Only one film was made by the Central Office of Information. That was some years ago when a film was made jointly for the Ministry of Pensions and the Ministry of Labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

National Service Men, Far East

Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for War how many National Service men under the age of 19 have been posted to the Far East during the past six months; what is the minimum period of jungle training in Malaya they are given before being sent into action; and how many of these young soldiers have been rejected during the jungle training course.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): During the six months prior to 30th September, 1949, some 1,600 National Service men who had been called up since 1st January, 1949, were posted to the Far East. Most of these men were under 19 years of age. In the same period a considrable number of National Service men called up during 1948 were also posted to the Far East, but I am unable to say how many of them were under 19.
As far as is possible, before being sent out on operations, reinforcements arriving in the Far East spend a suitable period in the Command, usually about four weeks, in order that they may become accustomed to the climate and trained in

the jobs they are likely to do in jungle operations. No details are available of any rejections during jungle training.

Mr. Hurd: Does the Minister really consider that this makes for an efficient use of manpower—only four weeks training for jungle fighting—or that it is worthy of Britain to send these half-trained lads to fight Communist guerrillas in Malaya?

Mr. Shinwell: We are advised by our people in the theatre that these men are very efficient.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: May I put two points to my right hon. Friend? Is he aware that what is officially described as jungle training, is in fact very much like active participation in operations, and does he really consider that an 18 year old boy, after 16 weeks on Salisbury Plain and then four weeks in camp in Malaya, is adequately trained for this type of work?

Mr. Shinwell: It is the best we can do in present circumstances. We have gone into this matter very carefully and we are advised by the commander on the spot that it is working out very well on the whole.

Earl Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to this House and to the world that these Malayan forces have fought magnificently and in accordance with the best traditions of the British Army?

Mr. Shinwell: I can certainly endorse what the noble Lord has said.

Supply Depot, Westbury

Mr. Grimston: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give the number of male and female employees, respectively; the tonnage moved in per month and out per month, respectively and the number of ex-farm workers employed at the Central Ordnance Supply Depot at Westbury.

Mr. Shinwell: One hundred and fifty males and one female are employed at the Central Ordnance Sub-Depot at Westbury. The average monthly tonnage handled during the period July to September, 1949, was 920 tons in and 200 tons out. Five ex-farm workers are employed.

B.O.C.A. Publication

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for War how many copies of the Bureau of Current Affairs publication No. 87, entitled "This Dollar Problem," were purchased by his Department for distribution to military units and personnel; between what dates their distribution took place; and what was the cost to public funds.

Mr. Shinwell: Twelve thousand, six hundred and seventy-five copies of this publication were purchased by His Majesty's Stationery Office on behalf of my Department. Distribution began about 20th August and was completed by about 12th September, 1949. I understand that the cost to His Majesty's Stationery Office was £182. The cost of distribution cannot be isolated.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the fact that distribution concluded only six days before devaluation took place, was any useful purpose served in circulating a document which proves conclusively, on page 15, that the present Government would never devalue the pound?

Mr. Shinwell: In the circumstances then prevailing, it was quite a legitimate point of view.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that answer mean—

Mr. Speaker: We must get on with Questions. We have got to No. 36 in three-quarters of an hour. Mr. Skeffington Lodge.

Tank Gunnery Range, Dorset

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that part of the devastation caused by his Department in the Purbeck country in Dorset, comprises damage by shells to the roof of the fourteenth century church in the Tyneham Valley; and what action is proposed to prevent further destruction of this sort occurring in respect of other historic monuments in the area.

Mr. Shinwell: I am not aware that any damage has been caused to Tyneham Church by shells since 1945. It is unlikely that any further damage of this nature will be caused to the church since, although in the ricochet area, it is not in the firing area of the range. Every

endeavour is being made to ensure that historical monuments within the range area do not come within the firing area.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any restitution was made in the case which he admits, or whether any form of compensation was forthcoming from his Department?

Mr. Shinwell: That is not for me to decide. If there is any question of de-requisitioning it is a matter for the Minister of Works.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: Can my right hon. Friend say whether in the foreseeable future his Department will be able to return this highly fertile valley to food production?

Mr. Shinwell: I would not care to say anything about the foreseeable future.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what steps he is taking to safeguard as far as possible the natural beauty of the Purbeck country in which is established a tank gunnery range.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. King): My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that the training facilities referred to have caused, or will cause, any serious injury to the natural beauty of the area in question. The point is however being watched.

Rents (Assistance Scheme)

Mr. Bramall: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will modify the scheme for assistance to officers and other ranks in renting accommodation where quarters are not available, so that the individual soldier may become the tenant instead of the War Office.

Mr. Shinwell: No, Sir. The scheme alluded to has been devised as a temporary measure for providing living accommodation in kind until sufficient married quarters become available.

Mr. Bramall: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the figures he gave recently of 70 officers and 10 other ranks having taken advantage of the scheme show that in fact it is not fulfilling the purpose for which it was designed? Is he aware that the fact that the War Department becomes a tenant is a great


deterrent to landlords letting accommodation for occupation by military personnel?

Mr. Shinwell: The position has improved since I gave my last answer to my hon. Friend and the scheme is working out very well indeed.

War Office (Staff)

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the average percentage of headquarters staff already saved by the economies recently announced; what further percentage will be saved in the current financial year; and whether he will give the same figures for saving in the War Office.

Mr. Shinwell: Between 1st April and 30th September, 1949, the number of persons employed in the War Office fell by 12.9 per cent. By 31st March, 1950, it is anticipated that there will be a further decrease of at least 5 per cent.

Mr. Low: What about the headquarters staff, to which the Question refers, in addition to the War Office?

Mr. Shinwell: I assumed that when the hon. Member referred to headquarters staff he meant staff at headquarters, and gave an answer accordingly.

Mr. Low: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are other headquarters and that the cuts, when they were announced, specifically referred to those?

Mr. Shinwell: I understand what the hon. Member is driving at and if he wants further information about the commands generally I will try to get it for him.

Married Quarters, Colchester

Mr. Charles Smith: asked the Secretary of State for War how many married quarters are at present in course of construction in Colchester Barracks, including in his estimate the number of quarters which will be provided as the result of the rehabilitation of the obsolete quarters at present unoccupied.

Mr. Shinwell: One hundred and sixty-eight married quarters are in course of construction at Colchester, 68 being for officers and 100 for other ranks. In addition, 20 quarters are being provided

for other ranks as the result of the rehabilitation of obsolete quarters at present unoccupied.

Mr. Charles Smith: asked the Secretary of State for War how many applications for married quarters are outstanding from warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men serving with units stationed at Colchester.

Mr. Shinwell: There are, at present, outstanding 126 applications for married quarters from warrant officers, noncommissioned officers and men at Colchester. Some 50 further applications will be added to the list on the arrival of a fresh unit in December.

Officers (Retired Pay)

Mr. Low: asked the Secretary of State for War what increases have been awarded to pensions of retired British Army officers who were re-employed by the British Army during the war; and whether he will now arrange that the same increases are awarded to retired British Indian Army officers who were reemployed by the British Army during the war, and that the Government of the Dominion of India be asked to refund to the War Office the extra sums so payable.

Mr. Shinwell: The increases in the retired pay of British Army officers who were awarded service retired pay before 19th December, 1945, and who, after the date of retirement, rendered full time service in the Armed Forces during the war were explained in the answer given to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) on 15th April, 1946. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of this. I understand from my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, that the reassessment of the retired pay of the British officers of the Indian Army, to which reference is made, is a matter for the Government of India and that my right hon. Friend is pressing them for a decision. As regards the last part of the Question, I have no power to act as the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. Low: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men have not received the increased pensions to which they are obviously entitled because there has been


a dispute between the Government of India and His Majesty's Government as to who is liable? Is he not further aware that as these men have been reemployed by the British Army they are the responsibility of His Majesty's Government here, in respect of any increase in pension?

Mr. Shinwell: I fully sympathise with the officers concerned, and I recognise the differentiation as being disagreeable to them, but this is a matter which can only be settled as a result of conversations between His Majesty's Government and the Government of India, and I suggest that if the hon. Member desires a further answer he should put down a Question to my right hon. Friend.

Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question of these pensions was raised when the Government of India Act was before the House and consideration of the matter was then promised by the Government? Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman's colleague is responsible, and that these discussions have not been brought to an end?

Mr. Shinwell: That is so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is pressing for a decision, as I have already said, but the matter is not entirely in his hands.

Brigadier Head: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if the claim of the officers for this extra pension is acknowledged and if the dispute is merely as to who is responsible for payment, could not payment be made in anticipation of a settlement and has not the right hon. Gentleman power to make that settlement?

Mr. Shinwell: There can be no question of acknowledgment of the claims except by the party concerned. I am afraid that we cannot make any grant in anticipation of that.

Mr. Low: Is there not a precedent for His Majesty's Government taking over responsibility for such cases where there is a dispute between His Majesty's Government here and the Government of India, for example, the precedent of the judges?

Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. Member cares to send me the reference, I will examine it.

Soldiers' Wives (Home Passages)

Mr. Low: asked the Secretary of State for War why home passages are not provided for the wives of soldiers who marry overseas unless nine months have elapsed since the date of the marriage.

Mr. Shinwell: Normally passages for wives between the United Kingdom and overseas stations are not provided unless it is anticipated that the family will be united for at least nine months in the overseas area. A similar qualifying period is laid down in the case of local marriages in order to prevent inequality of treatment.

Mr. Low: Is not one of the results of this rule that men who intend to marry overseas, rush into marrying instead of waiting, as perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like them to do?

Mr. Shinwell: If in the opinion of the hon. Member there are cases of hardship, perhaps he will send me particulars of them. I will certainly consider them with sympathy.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRY (DISTRIBUTIVE METHODS)

Mr. Charles Smith: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the evidence in the reports of a number of working parties, that methods of distribution were adding considerably to selling and export prices, whether he will direct appropriate Ministers in the special meeting with representative bodies from industry recently announced, to draw attention to the possibilities of improving efficiency and reducing costs and prices by lowering distribution charges and, where appropriate, seeking a modification of distributive methods.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is sure that in these meetings the possibilities of improving distribution will not be overlooked.

Mr. Smith: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer take steps to see that the point is particularly emphasised.

Sir S. Cripps: I am sure that wherever it is necessary, the Ministers who are responsible will put emphasis upon it.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Do the Government hope by these methods to reduce the prices of other goods and services as much as they have reduced the prices of coal, electricity and gas?

Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will put that Question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Purchase Tax

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications for exemption from Purchase Tax have been received by his Department during this year in respect of new articles which have been developed since the present Purchase Tax provisions were finalised; and what is the average length of time taken to consider each application.

Sir S. Cripps: I am not aware of any applications in respect of articles which have originated since the Purchase Tax provisions were finalised in July. 1948. But if the hon. Member means applications in respect of new varieties of articles existing before then, there have been a number. They are not separately recorded and the time taken to consider them would depend upon the circumstances.

Mr. Erroll: In view of the Chancellor's apparent lack of knowledge of this aspect of his Department's working, would he investigate the delay which is occurring in relieving from Purchase Tax instantaneous gas water heaters fired by bottled gas, and ask his Department to hurry up in the matter?

Sir S. Cripps: I am quite aware of the position in regard to that matter.

Earl Winterton: In view of the difficulty in understanding the technical terms used by the Chancellor, would he give serious consideration to publishing a glossary of Treasury terms?

Sir S. Cripps: If the noble Lord would read the Oxford English Dictionary, he would find them all there.

Mr. Turton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Purchase Tax on tallies and labels used on export goods is hampering

the sale of British goods in overseas markets, and whether he will reconsider the Purchase Tax on these articles.

Sir S. Cripps: Though I hardly think that the incidence of the tax on any consignment can be any appreciable handicap on the export trade, I will consider this at the next review of the Purchase Tax.

Mr. Turton: Will the Chancellor also consider making an order under Section 29 of the Finance Act, 1940, giving an allowance for tax paid in respect of Purchase Tax on tallies?

Sir S. Cripps: I will certainly consider that.

Imports (Sterling Payment)

Mr. Austin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions are proceeding with the United States and Canadian Governments regarding payment in sterling for imports from these countries; and if he will make a statement.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will initiate discussions with a view to persuading Canada to enter fully or partially into the sterling area.

Sir S. Cripps: No such discussions are at present proceeding with either Government. Propositions of this kind require precise definition as well as extremely careful examination before any considered judgment can be passed upon them.

Mr. Austin: In view of our need for a large variety of commodities, and in view of the surpluses which exist in America, this is surely an eminently reasonable solution of the problem?

Sir S. Cripps: It is a matter which can be examined.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: While I agree that a proposition of this kind needs careful preparation and consideration, I would ask the Chancellor whether it is not due to our position of leadership of the sterling area that the initiative should come from us before smaller parts of the sterling area, for example, Southern Rhodesia, in considering this question?

Sir S. Cripps: I have no knowledge of Southern Rhodesia making such a proposition.

British Officials, Egypt

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a list, with salaries, of all British officials employed in Egypt by the British Government, together with their designations and duties.

Sir S. Cripps: As the reply is somewhat lengthy and involves a number of figures. I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Erroll: Could the Chancellor say, in view of the length of his reply, whether he intends to reduce the number of staffs employed in Egypt.

Sir S. Cripps: When the hon. Member reads the reply he will see that that is quite unnecessary.

Following is the reply:

Excluding staff locally recruited, the total number of civilians employed by His Majesty's Government in Egypt is 159. This includes subordinate staff, but excludes civilian staff attached to His Majesty's Forces. A list is appended showing the numbers employed in different Departments, but a complete list of salaries, designations and duties would take up disproportionate space and I suggest that if the hon. Member requires any specific information not available in the published Estimates he should seek it from the Minister concerned

Department



Nos.


H.M. Embassy (including Civil Attachés and Consulates)
76


Ministry of Supply
32


British Middle East Office
21


Ministry of Works
15


Ministry of Transport
13


Ministry of Civil Aviation
2



159

Profit Margins

Mr. Austin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will underline his recent appeal to industry for lower profit margins by making direct Government recommendations on this matter to the Federation of British Industries, the National Union of Manufacturers and other responsible trade organisations.

Sir S. Cripps: The need for all possible measures to reduce prices has been thoroughly emphasised and must be fully appreciated by all responsible trade organisations.

Mr. Austin: In view of the fact that circumstances prove that this position is not appreciated by trade organisations why does not my right hon. and learned Friend take the initiative? He will sooner or later have to take some initiative in making some of these proposals?

Sir S. Cripps: The initiative was taken a long time ago and to repeat the initiative will not necessarily make it more effective.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Would it not be a good thing if the Chancellor addressed to the Federation of British Industries the letter which he addressed to them in February last year asking for a scheme of price and profit reduction and for him this time to insist on a less evasive and more honest reply?

Sir S. Cripps: I think that their reply was both honest and unevasive.

Income Tax Remissions

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the total amount of tax remitted on hardship grounds during this last two years; the class of people to whom the remission was made; and how many of them were in the Pay As You Earn category?

Sir S. Cripps: My hon. Friend will find particulars of tax remitted in the accounting years 1946–47 and 1947–48, the latest years for which information is at present available, in the Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Appropriation Accounts of the Inland Revenue Department for those years. I am afraid that it is not possible to give separate information for the P.A.Y.E. field.

Mr. Fernyhough: Could the Chancellor assure the House that in the event of any people in the P.A.Y.E. category getting into difficulties subsequent to having paid Income Tax, they will receive the same consideration as people who have to be excused thousands?

Sir S. Cripps: Certainly.

Exchange Equalisation Account

Mr. Walter Fletcher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the sale of gold mining shares for the account of the Exchange Equalisation Account since 19th September, 1949, resulted in a capital profit commensurate with the 30 per cent. devaluation of sterling.

Sir S. Cripps: I am not prepared to disclose the transactions of the Exchange Equalisation Account.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the Chancellor aware that to create a great mystery about a simple transaction which may result in considerable profit is not in the best public interest, and that he should reveal this, otherwise the same sort of suspicions which proved correct in the case of the groundnuts accounts will appear here?

Sir S. Cripps: I share the view of all my predecessors that transactions of the Exchange Equalisation Account should not be disclosed.

Plant and Machinery (Import Duty)

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury will, in future, consider applications for exemption

of import duty on plant and on parts and accessories for such plant and machinery in suitable cases.

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. This could not be done without new legislation.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: In view of the Debate on this matter during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, when indications were given that such conversations would take place, may I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any progress has been made or any agreement reached?

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. Considerable progress has been made but they are not yet finalised.

BILL PRESENTED

DISTRIBUTION OF GERMAN ENEMY PROPERTY

"to provide for the collection and realisation of German enemy property and for the distribution of the proceeds thereof; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; supported by Mr. Bevin, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Glenvil Hall; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 199.]

Orders of the Day — WAR DAMAGED SITES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that it has been discovered that subsection (1) of Clause 11 of this Bill should have been printed in italics, but as any money involved is covered by the Money Resolution, I have thought it unnecessary to have the Bill reprinted and re-produced.

3.41 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The purposes that this Bill covers are narrow, but I hope that the House will consider them to have some importance. It must be the experience of hon. Members in all parts of the House that a great deal of nuisance arises from the condition of some of the bombed sites in our great cities; nuisance not only to public health, but also to the amenities of the neighbourhood. Indeed, there have been instances where these bombed sites, which are still covered in some instances by structures in process of dereliction, have been used for purposes which are an offence both against the law and against public morality.
Therefore we have come to the conclusion that the time has been reached when it is necessary to arm the local authorities with more power to deal with them than they have at the moment. I have been trying to find out whether the existing law is sufficient, but I have come to the conclusion that although there are Acts under which local authorities could start to work, nevertheless they all have this one very grave defect—that although local authorities could in some instances where there is a nuisance abate the nuisance, or where there is an offence to amenities take action, they could not remain in possession and could not therefore continue the good work which they started.
The Bill is short and easy to understand, except in so far as it relates to the complications of real estate. In these Measures I always start off very optimistically, and usually find out that whenever I am dealing with real estate there are many more complications in the way than

one expected at the beginning. However, we have attempted in this Bill to deal with them, and when we reach the Committee stage, where more particular examination is required, I shall be interested to learn whether there are some breaches which ought still to be filled up.
It is contemplated that the local authorities, that is to say the counties and the boroughs and the county districts, shall have the right to acquire possession of these sites in one of two main ways: they could negotiate a lease with those having an interest in the site, or they could proceed by way of compulsory possession. If they wished to do so by way of compulsory possession they must obtain the consent of the Minister. We have thought it unwise in this connection to use the cumbrous and tedious machinery of compulsory purchase, because it is not proposed that the local authority should remain in permanent possession of these sites; unless of course arrangements can be made with the owners in the ordinary way.
As they cannot obtain possession in the first instance for more than five years, with a renewal up to a maximum of 10 years, it seemed to me and to the Members of the Government that in these circumstances it would be unreasonable to use any other machinery than that suggested in the Bill.

Earl Winterton: I am personally interested in this matter and I should like to ask the Minister a question. Where a superior local authority, for example, the London County Council, has given notice of the purchase of a property which includes a bombed site, would an inferior local authority—I use the word "inferior" in no derogatory sense—such as a borough council, have the power to take over this site notwithstanding that the superior local authority has given notice to purchase the property?

Mr. Bevan: Speaking on the spur of the moment, and I hope that in Committee we shall finalise the matter, I should have thought that where a superior scheme is in process of being carried out which would absorb the site—I would rather call it "a superior scheme" than "a superior authority"—it would have precedence over a local scheme.
There is however one complication which I must point out to the House. It arises out of the incidence of war damage payment. Where a local authority desires to obtain possession of a site it must first get in touch with the War Damage Commission and find out to what particular classification the site belongs, and whether it is a value payment site or a cost of works site. If it is a cost of work site and those having an interest in it can obtain permission to carry out work there, but have neglected to do so, the War Damage Commission can convert the compensation into a value payment.

Colonel Dower: The Minister said neglected to do so." Would that also apply where they have endeavoured to get a licence but it has been refused them?

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir, that is a further matter which I shall deal with later. Here I am referring to a case where it has been shown to be practicable for the person or persons having an interest in the site to carry out cost of works works, but in fact, for reasons best known to themselves, they have not done so. It seemed to us that it would be improper to leave that site in its present condition, and in such a set of conditions the War Damage Commission, can under the terms of the Bill, convert the cost of works compensation into a value payment, in which case the local authority would not be obstructed in its intention.

Mrs. Middleton: Would any such cost of works be a converted value payment or a true value payment?

Mr. Bevan: It would be a value payment in accordance with the terms of the original Act. This will not affect the situation at all. There are two forms of payment. One is where it is possible for planning permission subsequently to be obtained—but maybe not at the moment—and the original structure, or something corresponding to it, will be re-erected. In this case it would be a cost of works payment. Where in this instance—and this is the only instance where it happens—planning permission can be obtained, where licences are available and the owner has not acted, then public interest demands that local authorities should not

be obstructed. In such a case the individual owner would receive a value payment and the local authority would have access to the land under the terms of the Bill.
I want to make it clear that it is not proposed that the terms of this Bill if it becomes an Act should act to the disadvantage of a person in obtaining a licence. In fact, before the Minister would give permission for compulsory access to these sites, he would first find out whether there is an early prospect of a licence being given and, further, whether the owner of the site would himself carry out works to put the site in a proper condition. This is not a case where we want the public authority to step in to do something that the private individual would do himself.
The normal course of procedure would be that when application is made to the Minister, if the individual owner objects the Minister would then say, "What are your proposals about it? Are you going to enter upon it?" Indeed, even after the Minister has given permission to the local authority, if the individual came forward it would still be open to the Minister to postpone the action of the local authority pending the individual having an opportunity of doing work on the site himself.
I should like to make it clear that the work that the local authority can carry out on the site would be any work which the local authority itself has the legal right to do. It would be able to carry out any of its local government functions, including the power to lay out gardens. It does not necessarily follow that they would be public gardens. They could be private gardens. It would be possible for the local authority, in addition to its normal statutory functions, to lay out these sites in a manner congenial to the neighbourhood.
Furthermore, it would be open to the local authority to enter upon one of these sites, get rid of rubble and things of that sort, flatten out the site and then leave it if it wishes. It does not necessarily follow that the local authority in every instance would go further. Its requirements might be satisfied if it just got rid of all the rubbish that was there and left the place as an open site without any danger, and, I hope, without any disfigurement, on which children could play. On the other


hand, after having carried out certain works, it might want to stay there and lay out the ground in some such way as I have described.
When the five or 10 years, or whatever period is agreed, are up and the site relapses to its original possessor or to the person who has acquired the rights over the site in the meantime, then that person would be compensated at the end of the period for any disturbance that might have been caused by the occupancy of the site by the local authority.
It may be said during this Debate that the Bill has one defect. It is a defect which I am afraid is often found in Bills of this sort. The local authority would not be obtaining any special grant from the Exchequer for this work. I should like to assuage the fears of hon. Members in one respect. Where the War Damage Commission would be liable to a payment to a person carrying out work which the local authority carries out, then the local authority itself can attract from the War Damage Commission such amount of money as the private person would be able to obtain. The War Damage Commission would not be liable to any additional amount. A private person could take possession of the site and, having planning permission and licence, could carry out work such as demolition and clearance, for which the War Damage Commission would pay. If the local authority itself carried out such work in making the site agreeable, it would be doing work for which the War Damage Commission would have had to pay somebody else. In such a case the local authority could obtain that amount of money from the War Damage Commission.
That is the only respect in which local rates could be relieved of some of the cost of carrying out this work. Of course, there is the other instance to which Mr. Speaker called our attention where the local authority is the recipient of exchange equalisation money.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Rates equalisation.

Mr. Bevan: Rates equalisation. I beg pardon. We have been involved in exchanges so much recently that our minds get on the tramlines, as it were. Where the local authority attracts a rates equalisation grant from the Exchequer, of course the Exchequer would assist in

this activity as in others. That is the reason why we have the Financial Resolution. Otherwise, it would not have been necessary in a Bill of this sort. Further than that it seems to me unreasonable to ask the Government to go. This is essentially a local service. It is essentially a service from which local citizens will benefit. It will add to the amenities of their areas, it will clear up a nuisance, and it seems to me to be an activity which should properly in such circumstances fall upon the rates.
We are not contemplating massive works, because obviously one could not obtain possession of a site for such a short period as this and involve oneself in very large expenditure. Also, as it has been necessary to limit the capital investment programme, we could not contemplate extensive operations. Nevertheless, there is a lot of ugliness which could be cleared up easily at very little expense especially in our great cities which suffered from the malice of the enemy.

Mr. Shurmer: It could be done voluntarily.

Mr. Bevan: Where it can be done voluntarily, I hope that it will be done. I am very glad that my hon. Friend interrupted me. Very often, apart from the heavy work of clearance and other matters which must be dealt with by a competent body, the laying out and the care and protection of these local sites could be done much better by local voluntary organisations than by distant centralised departments. It has been our experience in laying out local authority housing estates that they are most attractive and agreeable at the beginning, and then the whole matter is allowed to go into neglect and before long it becomes an eyesore. In such conditions I have encouraged local authorities to form tenants' associations for the purpose of looking after and tending the open spaces. Here I think that we agree in all parts of the House. There is no more gracious adornment of our cities and villages than green spaces, flowers and trees. Often these are amenities which should be maintained by voluntary exertion.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: It might be said that this Bill has some connection with the preparations for the Festival of Britain. Would my right


hon. Friend as Minister of Health encourage local authorities deliberately to organise a campaign of voluntary work among organisations and individuals to use this Bill to brighten up their towns in preparation for the 1951 Festival?

Mr. Bevan: Certainly, I will look into it to see what can be done in that respect. We must remember that there are other sites besides blitzed sites. I have been looking round the country recently, and I have been dismayed quite often to see the way in which disused industrial premises in particular have been allowed to fall into dereliction. There are, quite often, cases where a judicious use of colour wash would brighten up our villages quite a lot. I cannot understand this distaste of some people for bright colours. Being a Celt, as the House knows, I am fond of high colours, and I hope very much that greater use will be made of this amenity in our cities and on these sites particularly, not only the blitzed sites but also in the older districts of Great Britain. There, a very great deal can be done in this regard, and this is a field where voluntary exertion would be better than the efforts of public authorities.

Colonel Dower: The right hon. Gentleman would help a great deal if he assisted people to get the necessary licences to get materials in order to do the work.

Mr. Bevan: They do not need very much in this case. I am not talking about building new structures; I am talking about the demolition of disused buildings, the clearing up of sites, the making good of party walls and colour washing, use of paint and things of that sort, which could quite transfigure some of our neighbourhoods.
We had in mind the Festival of Britain when this Bill was first suggested. We do not want large numbers of people to come to Great Britain and to go away again with the conclusion that we are bad housewives and are not looking after our public places properly. Therefore, as I think there is a generally congenial attitude towards this Bill, I beg to move its Second Reading without further ado.

3.54 p.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: The House is accustomed to hear the right hon. Gentleman in what I might

call his major key. But this afternoon, by way of variation, we have heard him in a minor key, and, of course, he is sufficient of an artist in these matters to adjust his rhetorical style to the subject to which he is applying himself. He is quite right to move this Bill in a minor key, because it is a minor Bill. It is not a Bill which will arouse any very great enthusiasm in the country. There are not likely to be many people who will say, "It is true that the housing programme has been substantially cut, but, never mind, we have got the War Damaged Sites Bill instead." There will be few even of the most fervent admirers of the right hon. Gentleman who will go to that extent in their thanksgiving for this Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman has correctly referred to the congenial attitude towards this Bill, which is shared by my hon. and right hon. Friends and myself. Of course, this is a minor Bill; and the only right thing to do, on a long-term basis or on any broad comprehensive view of this problem, is to get the right sort of redevelopment going as soon as possible in order to provide a permanent solution to this problem, of which we are all aware. What is wanted is development useful to the community and pleasing to the eye. As the right hon. Gentleman admits, this process is necessarily retarded by the cut in the capital investment programme; and so, in that state of affairs, and, as the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes) has reminded us, with the Festival of Britain looming ahead, we have this Bill, which, on the long view, can only be considered a patching up Bill and must not be allowed to come a concealment of the real problem that lies ahead.
In the position which we are in today, we on this side of the House do not oppose a Bill which is designed to give power to local authorities to prevent injury to amenity arising from war damaged sites. I cannot however altogether agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that this Bill is easy to understand. I made a quick calculation of the number of major and complex Acts of Parliament which are referred to, applied, or amended by this minor Bill, and there are 10, ranging from the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act of 1845 right down to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and the Local


Government Act, 1948. There are two more, for good measure, in the interpretation Clause of the Bill.
That does not make the Bill easy to understand; and the Minister is quite wrong when he says that it is, because this Bill bristles with problems of various kinds. It so happens that, whether or not as retribution for having a large share of original sin, I have to spend a good deal of time in one way or another on these Acts; and I ask the House to believe that the Acts which are varied, amended or referred to by this Bill are very complex and difficult Acts. Certainly my preoccupation with them has taken away any temptation I might otherwise have felt to indulge in crosswords, acrostics or what I believe are called pool permutations.

Mr. Royle: They are more profitable.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Pool permutations might be more profitable, but as intellectual gymnastics the study of these Acts is probably more vigorous. However, I am sure the hon. Member will agree that the object of an Act of Parliament is not to provide lawyers with intellectual gymnastics.
I am glad the hon. Gentleman agrees with that, because the correct object, surely, is to define the rights and duties of the citizen in a way that is reasonably comprehensible to himself. Any Measure which adds to these complications is from that point of view retrograde. Opinion is divided as to how posterity will judge the right hon. Gentleman as an administrator. I have never made any attempt to conceal my opinion; and, so far as additions to the Statute Book are concerned, there is no doubt that when his term of office closes he is bound to go down to history as the Minister who, instead of clarifying that part of the Statute Book relating to the work of his own Department, made it more cumbrous and complex than it would otherwise have been.
Before I pass on to the one or two comments which I want to make on this Bill, it will probably be right and convenient at this point to make a declaration of interest, to the extent that I am a director of a company which owns a good deal of property in and about London, including two war damaged

sites. I do not think that this company Will be very much affected by this Bill, because one site is in the declaratory area in the City of London, and therefore subject to compulsory acquisition, and the other one is in Paddington and is, I understand, designated for compulsory acquisition under the draft development plan for that part of London. I make that declaration of interest so that the House may have it in mind for what it amounts to.
This Bill applies where three things are established, as set out in Clause 1. The first two, under paragraphs (a) and (b), are matters of fact, but the third—whether or not it is detrimental to amenity—is, of course, largely a question of opinion. It is a strange thing that, although we talk a great deal about amenity in this House, there is, so far as I know, no statutory definition of it. Certainly there is not one in this Bill or in the Town and Country Planning Act; and, peculiarly, so far as I know, there are only two judicial interpretations of the meaning of the word "amenity." One of those dates from the stern Victorian days when amenities were described as "mere matters of luxury." The second definition was given by Lord Justice Scrutton who said that the word "amenity" was obviously used very loosely, and appeared to mean pleasant circumstances, features and advantages. That is the sum total of the assistance given either by the courts or by Act of Parliament when defining this word which we all use so much.
As hon. Members will appreciate, on the interpretation by local authorities of this admittedly very vague term, people are to lose their property, albeit for only a temporary period. In such circumstances, it is the duty of Parliament to scrutinise very closely any Measures which deprive citizens of their rights.

Mr. Bevan: No one is going to lose his property at all under this Measure. The very fact that the site is unoccupied means that the owner of it, whoever
he may be, is unable to obtain statutory permission to develop the site, and, therefore, he is losing nothing at all. All it does is to occupy a vacuum.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I did not suggest that the owner would lose the freehold of his property by compulsory acquisition.
But he will lose the possession and the use of his property. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman talking about a vacuum where matters of real estate are concerned. He said earlier that things become complex when matters of real estate are introduced, but it is really of no assistance for the right hon. Gentleman to say that because a site is requisitioned—which is a temporary occupation—the owner of that site is deprived of nothing but a vacuum.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member has misled himself here; he has followed the labyrinths of these Acts to such an extent that he has got himself into a slightly confused condition. May I as a mere layman attempt to clear up a juridical point? What happens here is that if the owner of the property wishes to have access to it, even after it has been taken over by a local authority, and if he can satisfy the Minister that his possession of it will not produce a nuisance and will be an amenity, he can enter into possession of the site.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I shall come to that point straightaway. I have inspected with some interest the provisions of Clause 7. As the Clause is at present drafted, I am of the opinion that it will not necessarily effect what the Minister now says it is intended to effect, and perhaps it would be convenient if I explained to the right hon. Gentleman straightaway why I have formed that view. Under Clause 7—which is the Clause, I take it, to which the Minister refers—the owner can get his land released if he can get a planning permission and if he can convince the Minister under Section 7 (1, c) that he will be proceeding without delay to do the works necessary for the development.

Mr. Sparks: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I will tell the hon. Member. To proceed without delay, the owner must have got a determination of development charge under Section 69 of the Town and Country Planning Act, because it is illegal to proceed without it. Is the hon. Member with me so far? But in order to get his determination of development charge he must either have an interest in the land sufficient to carry out the development, or be able to convince the Central Land Board that he

can obtain it. Is the hon. Member with me in that proposition? He can only convince the Central Land Board of that if he can show them that he can satisfy the Minister that he will proceed at once, because that is the only way in which he can, in fact, show that he is in a position to get on with the work. But he cannot satisfy the Minister until he has his development charge.

Mr. Bevan: No.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes. In my view, the owner here may be in a complete impasse, if one judges his difficulties by what he has to establish under Clause 7 of this Bill and under Sections 69 and 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act.

Mr. Bevan: This, obviously, is a matter which we shall have to thresh out in greater detail in Committee. It is not really a Second Reading point, but, nevertheless, I hope that there will be no misunderstanding. The Minister could not plead that a person wishing to have access to one of these blitzed sites could not expeditiously carry out what he promised to do merely on account of the fact that he could not get permission to do it under any statute. What the hon. Gentleman has to show is that it is the power conferred on the local authority by this Bill which denies the individual owner the opportunity to develop. The owner would make his application in the normal way and the planning authority or the Land Board would say, "You can go ahead. We now tell you that, having access to the site, you can have a licence to carry on the work." Once that was said, the Minister would, in my opinion, be under an obligation to direct the local authority to release the site.

Mr. Walker-Smith: With respect, the right hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite wrong in his submission. First of all, if he is reproaching me for taking this point on Second Reading, I would point out that I am only taking it in answer to his challenge to me. It is a point, of course, which ought to be taken notice of in Committee. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that his broad and vague interpretation of the workings of these provisions is not, in fact, either adequate or correct.

Mr. Bevan: Mr. Bevan indicated dissent.

Mr. Walker-Smith: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. The Central Land Board and the Minister are bound by statute under this Bill. Whatever he may wish to do—and on this occasion let us give him credit for good intentions—he is bound by statute. That is where the duty of Parliament comes in—to see that what is incorporated in this statute is what Parliament would wish to do. My point is that as the Bill is at present drafted there is that inescapable difficulty. I shall not pursue the point further now, but I would recommend the Minister to take the point to those who advise him on these questions and to look at it again on the Committee stage.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Supposing that the local authority had been responsible for a fair amount of expenditure on the improvement of the site, does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the Minister would then be justified in restoring it to its original owner?

Mr. Walker-Smith: As I understand the hon. Member's point, it is this. Supposing that during the period of the taking possession of the land money is spent by the local authority, and
that then, before the end of the period of requisition, the Minister gives the land back to the owner. Of course, that is only a refinement of the point which arises in any case. As the hon. Member appreciates, these sites are requisitioned, not acquired, so that any work of a permanent nature done by the local authorities upon these sites reverts at the end of the period of requisition for the benefit of the freehold.
That raises a very important point—and this touches also the amenities side—as to what sort of work we can expect local authorities to do upon these sites. In Clause 4 (2) of this Bill they are given wide powers; and their powers are a good deal wider than laying out gardens because, if hon. Members look at the interpretation Clause, they will see that "works" includes the laying out of gardens—I think this is Clause 15—but that it also includes
the demolition, repair or erection of buildings.
It certainly would allow them to lay out gardens, and already there are gardens in certain blitzed cities—at any

rate in the City of London—which are very attractive.
But so far as "works" are concerned, the hon. Member will appreciate that no local authority is going to put up anything in the nature of a permanent structure and leave it there after five or at most 10 years, for the benefit of the freeholder. If they are going to put up any buildings at all, will there not be a great danger that these will be temporary shacks, hutments and the like, so that the last state of the site, if we are not careful, may well be worse than the first? I think perhaps that was the point which the hon. Member had in mind and it is, of course, a most important point in regard to the amenity aspect of these provisions.
May I turn from that to the suggestion which has been made that there are these disused industrial premises, and so on, which carry some measure of reproach to those who own them. I am certainly far from saying that such cases may not exist. Of course there may be cases where that is so, but let not hon. Members get the idea that wherever the provisions of this Bill are to be applied it is because the owners of the site are blameworthy in some degree. The difficulties of getting on with the work on their sites are very considerable.
There is the difficulty of building licences, to which reference has been made; there is the difficulty, so far as the re-instatement of war damaged properties is concerned, that they may have asked for a cost of works payment from the War Damage Commission and succeeded in obtaining only a value payment. Then the difficulty of planning permission arises in many sites, for use is made of the General Development Order to make it necessary for them to obtain planning permission to reinstate war damaged buildings.
For one of those reasons, and possibly all of them, many well-intentioned persons have not been able to do the work which otherwise they would have wished to do. Do not let hon. Members take the view that because sites are in this condition there is necessarily any degree of blame to be attached to the private individual, because it may be quite otherwise. As the House knows, these matters are extremely difficult at the present time.
On the subject of amenities, hon. Members will, I think, have it in mind that it


is sometimes the case that local authorities themselves are not very good custodians of amenity. They are better than Governments on balance, because the worst offenders against planning principles are normally Government Departments, but local authorities very often themselves also offend against matters of amenity.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It depends on their political complexion.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I did not make that point, but if the hon. Member takes it he will no doubt be able, when he catches your eye, Sir, to inform the House what was the political complexion of the local authority which so violated the amenities of the Green Belt around London. So far as amenities are concerned it will, I think, in some cases be necessary—and no doubt the Minister exercises his avuncular guidance in these matters—to keep the local authorities themselves up to scratch.
May I make a point on Clause 1 which, as the Minister said, empowers a local authority either to take a lease voluntarily or to use compulsory powers? In my view compulsory powers should not be used unless the local authority has been unable to take a lease voluntarily on reasonable terms. After all, even under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, which give the Central Land Board powers of compulsory acquisition, the board are allowed to use these powers only if the Minister is satisfied that they have been unable to take them voluntarily on reasonable terms, and I do not think that in this case the little finger of the Minister of Health should be thicker than the loins of the Minister of Town and Country Planning.
Quite clearly, in my view, this Clause ought to provide not for mere alternatives, but for the use of compulsory powers only in the event of a voluntary lease not being available to the local authority. On that point the Minister said he did not intend to put into this Bill the cumbrous and tedious procedure of compulsory acquisition. In my view he ought to do so because it is not very cumbrous and it is not very tedious. The Minister shakes his head, but I venture to say that in shaking his head he is committing himself to an undemocratic and an arbitrary use of policy. After all, requisitioning normally takes place

under Defence Regulations, which are war-time powers, and nobody would suggest, then, that there should be any cumbrous procedure. These powers, which are peace-time powers, should however follow the Schedule to the Acquisition of Land Act, 1946.

Mr. Bevan: Nobody is losing any rights at all under this Bill and, therefore, there is no reason for a great deal of this argument. The individuals who possessed these sites are unable to develop them, not because of any statute but because of the physical circumstances of the time. Therefore, no rights have been taken away.

Mr. Walker-Smith: If the Minister's contention is correct it means this: that in such circumstances the owners will be perfectly willing to lease their land to local authorities on a voluntary basis. That reinforces my argument as to the way in which this Clause should be framed. If they are not so willing it is probably because, in the individual circumstances of the particular case, there is some point which they wish to put forward—some special point—and the only way in which they can put it forward is at a hearing or a local inquiry such as is provided for in the procedure for compulsory purchase, and such as is deliberately left out of this Bill on account of the curious reasoning which the Minister has just given.
I give the Minister notice that that is obviously one of the points on which we shall seek to improve this Bill when it comes to Committee. The only satisfaction that an objector has under this procedure is that he gets notification of the Minister's decision. According to the Schedule of this Bill he is not even entitled to the reasons upon which that decision was based. I say that is a step in the direction of administrative law and it is a step in the wrong direction. This Bill ought to include proper provision for a hearing of a case by that minority of owners who may object to having their land taken over on requisition.
On the point of the entry of the local authorities, I see that Clause 9 gives the right of only 24 hours' notice and, there again, I suggest that that is insufficient and that it pays insufficient attention to the rights of the owner who, if he intends


to object at all, obviously needs more time in which to take proper advice and so on. This Bill, of course, also deals with matters of compensation; but those are inevitably technical matters and to some extent matters of detail which no doubt can best be dealt with in Committee.
I should, however just like to say at this stage that the effect of Clause 5 (2) of the Bill is of course, to narrow down very much the possible basis of compensation which can be given to owners under this particular procedure. The effect of limiting the hypothetical lease to the short period for which the requisition is actually in use is, of course, to shut out the possibilities of the compensation being assessed on the basis of the building leases, or anything of that sort; and, having in mind the recent decision under the main Compensation Act, I have no doubt that that has been done deliberately, with a view to cutting down compensation in that regard.
So far as the war damage aspect is concerned, the Minister has explained the position with regard to converted value payments, but I should just like to draw the attention of the House to a significant difference between the provisions of Clause 11 here and of Section 13 of the War Damage Act. Under Section 13 a converted value payment can be made instead of a cost of works payment if it is the wish of all the owners and proprietory interests and of any mortgagee. The wording of Clause 11, of course, is not "if it is their wish"; it merely necessitates consultation with those interests. Consultation, of course, is a very different thing from agreement; and there are various forms of consultation; and I am sure the Minister will not think it amiss if I say that some of us think that the Bevanesque type of consultation is a long way from the sort of consultation which leads to the agreement of the other party. So there is that very significant difference, from the point of view of the individual, between the provisions of this Bill and the provisions of the War Damage Act, 1943.

Mr. Bevan: I do wish the hon. Gentleman would look at the Bill not for the purpose of finding out what is not there but for the purpose of understanding it first of all. We are assuming in such a case that the person can carry out

cost of works work but does not, in fact, do it, and that we will, instead of having a cost of works work, have it carried out at once. Most of the work referred to here is cost of works work; that is to say, the right that the individual has in the site is to have put back the property that the enemy destroyed. That is his right, and what we are dealing with here is, whether the individual is or is not, in a reasonable time, going to exercise the right that he can exercise. That is the whole point. If he does not do so, obviously he ought not to be the steward of such a site but should have a value payment and clear out, so that the site can, in fact, be developed.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I really cannot go on answering the same point time and again, because, really, however many times the Minister shoots, he does not really get any nearer the target than in his previous exercises. It is quite clear that there may be many reasons, as I have already explained, why even a person who has a cost of works determination is not able to get on with the work. The cost of works payment does not give a man the right to rebuild a house in the form it previously was. All it does is to say that the amount of money which will be paid to him will be the amount of money appropriate to reinstating the house or building in the form in which it was before. It does not give him a right to it at all, and nobody would suggest it does.
What I am saying here is, that, whereas under Section 13 of the War Damage Act there has got to be an agreement with the proprietary interests, here all that is necessary to do is to consult them, and thereafter, apparently, if so minded, to put aside any representations that they may make; and that is, whatever the Minister or anybody else may say, clearly a very significant difference, and it is a difference which may be very significant in practice.
I have touched on some points—mainly with a view to answering questions put to me by the Minister—which are, to some extent, perhaps, precursors of points which may be dealt with more fully at the Committee stage; but I should like, in conclusion, to say this. Points that I have made now as arising out of this Bill are points which have occurred in a weekend of browsing over the Bill. I


know, and hon. Members know, that the defects and contradictions and imperfections of these technical Bills are not all seen at this stage; they are seen after they are on the Statute Book and when they are in operation. I prophesy to the Minister with a good deal of confidence this: that as this Bill now stands, when it is upon the Statute Book it is going to give a lot of trouble and a lot of difficulty in its interpretation and in its construction.
That being so, surely it is not unreasonable
to put this to the Minister. We on this side of the House are in agreement with the broad principle of this Bill. We are making no challenge to the broad principle of the Bill. We are dealing with it, as the Minister himself has said, in a congenial atmosphere. Surely, in all those circumstances it is not too much to ask the Minister to take a reasonable and detached view of those points—not merely a gladiatorial view, as of somebody determined to defend his text to the last ounce of his very considerable ability and pugnacity. He should look at it in an objective way, and undertake to give consideration to points from whichever side of the House they come. He should make it his aim that this Bill shall emerge from its Committee stage not less useful but more so, by the removal of points of doubt and of difficulty, thereby making it a better addition to the Statute Book.

4.27 p.m.

Captain Field: As a member of a local authority, I want to assure the Minister, first of all, that the local authorities welcome the powers given them under this Bill to deal with a problem which has long been exercising their ingenuity. I know that some of the Metropolitan boroughs have already been trying to do something in this matter, and have been feeling rather uneasy as to whether they have been breaking the law or not—whether they have had the powers to carry out the work they have been doing. As they have not, in fact, received any admonition from the district auditor, I take it that the matter is in order.
It is to the financial provisions of this Bill, and in particular to their impact upon the Metropolitan boroughs of London, that I want to confine my remarks. Clause 16 states:

There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament any increase attributable to the provisions of this Act in the Exchequer Equalisation Grant payable under Part I or Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948.
Under this formula, as far as I can see, the London Metropolitan boroughs will receive no financial assistance at all, since the rateable value of the County of London is in excess of the average rateable value of the counties of the country as a whole.
The Minister said something about this being a local government problem, and it is probably true that, as regards carrying out this work that is so; but I should like to direct his attention to the fact that it arises as a direct result of enemy action during the war. During the war local authorities received a 100 per cent. grant for the clearing of war-damaged buildings, and this 100 per cent. grant operates even at this stage with Ministry sanction. I cannot see why the same principle cannot be applied in this Bill. The London area was one of the most bombed areas in the country, and all the Metropolitan boroughs feel that the financial assistance for the purpose of clearing those war damaged sites should be be given by a specific grant in the terms of reimbursement or grant aid.
In the Financial Memorandum which prefaces the Bill, it is stated:
It is not possible to say what expenditure will fall on local rates as a result of operations authorised by the Bill, but it is likely to be small.…
This is not the view of the London Metropolitan boroughs. I should like to give the House some indication of the financial commitments into which the Metropolitan boroughs will have to enter to implement this Bill. First, the sites have to be cleared of a considerable amount of rubbish and other material which has accumulated over the years. It is felt that it is not the slightest use to do this if the sites are then left for more rubbish and debris to accumulate. We believe that in the majority of cases the sites will require fencing. Estimates have been made of how much it would cost to fence these sites. We believe that it would require at least six feet high chain link fencing, because if a lower height of fencing were used people would dump their rubbish over the top. To do the job properly


with chain link fencing would cost upwards of £1 per yard. The approximate cost of using secondhand bricks to the height of six feet would be £2 per yard. I think that this protective fencing is the least work which the local authority should carry out.
We all know that the Lord President, who was here during the Minister's remarks, is very anxious that the local authorities should brighten up and beautify the Metropolis and other parts of the country in connection with the 1951 Festival of Britain. Next year is the jubilee of the Metropolitan boroughs, and they have been asked to do some work to commemorate that event. It is possible that some of the local authorities will want to lay out some of these sites as gardens. To do this, the sites have to be cleared, cavities, basements, etc., filled in, and a suitable layer of top soil put on. I should like to give some figures which I have got from the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, of which I am a member, of the estimated cost to four Metropolitan borough councils, two of which I have selected at random and with two of which I am intimately connected.
In the case of Paddington, it is estimated that to deal with 162 sites by fencing most of them and laying out gardens in some of them will cost at least a 6d. rate. In Hammersmith, where I am chairman of the works committee, it is estimated that we shall have to spend at least £10,000, or a 2d. rate, to clear and fence the minimum number of these properties. To do the job properly and to lay out some of the sites as gardens, we believe would cost between £20,000 and £40,000. Hackney has 250 of these bombed sites. Battersea has 167, of which they recently cleared seven and fenced four at a cost of £681 2s. To clear 167 sites would take at least 20 times that amount, or somewhere in the region of £12,000 to £14,000.
I think that these figures will give some idea of the expenditure involved under this Bill. It may appear to the Minister to be only a small matter, as he says in the Financial Memorandum, but I assure him that to the Metropolitan boroughs it is a very serious burden at the present time. Failing any adequate grant from the Exchequer, they may be unable to carry out the provisions of this

Bill as they would otherwise like to do. Can the Minister tell me whether the powers given under this Bill will enable the local authorities to deal with the many static water tanks scattered about the Metropolitan area, which, even more than the bombed sites, are a source of nuisance and about which local authorities are continually receiving complaints?
In connection with compensation I note that the Minister can, under Clause 7, terminate the possession of the local authority if a site
is required by the owner for development, and I should like to know whether the local authority would get compensation for the work which it had already carried out. It may be argued that during the time it has been in the local authority's possession, the local authority has protected the common law liability of the owner as to nuisance, and may have carried out improvements such as the filling up of cavities on the site. Does the Minister think there is a case for the local authority receiving some compensation for the work which it has carried out?
The Minister said that a good deal of this work might be carried out by voluntary effort. As one who has a good deal to do with this problem, I cannot agree that the initial work should be carried out by voluntary effort. It is the initial work which will be the most expensive. I think, however, that there is room for voluntary effort when the sites are cleared and ready to be handed over to tenant associations, allotment committees and so forth. But it is the initial work, clearing up and putting on the top soil, which will cost the money, and it is in that connection that we feel we should have some assistance.

Mr. Mellish: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman comment on the Minister's statement that the War Damage Commission would be a source from which money could be obtained by local authorities to compensate them for this work?

Captain Field: I do not know how much money they would attract from that source. I feel that the amount so attracted would not be great, and that over and above any such contributions we ought to have something coming direct from the Exchequer.
I hope that in my remarks I have brought home to the Minister that the local authorities in the London area, for whom I am principally speaking, are very concerned indeed about the effect which this Bill will have on their local finances. We feel that the cost of the work is being passed on to them by
the Ministry when it should be borne by the Exchequer, since it is a direct result of the war and of enemy action. I am sorry that in the Financial Memorandum it is not possible to say what expenditure will be incurred by local authorities, I can assure the Minister that if his Department had gone to the local authorities in the London area, they could have given him a fairly accurate estimate of the cost likely to be incurred as a result of the Bill. The London authorities have very good estimates indeed, and would be quite prepared to give them to the Minister. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to see whether he cannot give a far greater measure of financial assistance than is provided under the Bill.

4.40 p.m.

Colonel Dower: We were all very interested in and struck by the effort made by the hon. and gallant Member for North Paddington (Captain Field), and I am sure that so long as he continues his activities, the local authorities are likely to do a very good job indeed. However, I hope he will forgive me if I do not follow him in discussing the financial side, because quite frankly I have not the necessary knowledge or experience to do so.
First, I must declare my interest. I am not a lawyer and therefore do not get briefs, but I do own a certain number of houses in various parts of London which the enemy seemed to pick out almost individually to drop incendiary or high explosive bombs on them. I do not possess any sites which are likely to be affected by this Bill, so I have no personal interest involved but I put forward my views as one who has tried to repair war damaged houses. I hope hon. Members will believe me when I say that my work in the House has been seriously interfered with by my endeavours to get houses and offices repaired, in order that people may have somewhere to live and somewhere to do

their work, and it has not been an easy job by any manner of means.
I also, for no ulterior motive, spent part of the weekend reading this Bill, and I can assure the Minister that I give it my blessing. The objects of the Bill are what we all want to see brought about, and no party question is likely to arise upon it, unless it be a small one in Committee. I am just as keen as the right hon. Gentleman to clear up these sites, not only because they are bad from the amenity and health points of view, but because they are bad for children who play there and sometimes break an arm or a leg. Indeed, only a short time ago a murder was committed on one of these sites.
There is such a site at the back of my own house, and if only the Minister could persuade his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to put a few policemen in that neighbourhood I am sure he would catch many undesirable people, some of whom pass my bedroom window almost every night between two and three o'clock. I have twice dialled 999 and had an immediate response, but these men escape over the wall into the blitzed area and are never seen again.

Mr. Shurmer: Why does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman catch them?

Colonel Dower: If the hon. Gentleman would like to come on such an adventure with me one night. I shall be delighted.
I do not make my criticism in any carping spirit, and although the right hon. Gentleman may answer me to his own satisfaction according to the strict letter of the law, I assure him that there are real practical difficulties. If any hon. Gentleman opposite set about trying to get a house repaired quickly, he would find that it is not so easy. It is surprising how week after week goes by and one just cannot get the necessary work started if the amount involved is over the statutory limit, which is now £100, although it is altered from time to time. With all the best will in the world, and giving all the time one possibly can to it, it is not an easy job.
I am anxious that this Bill, to which I give my wholehearted support, should not become a palliative. These sites must be rebuilt for rehousing people or for re-establishing


shops and offices of businesses. We want a long-term policy. At present there is a short-term policy, producing a mess which is a disgrace to our country, and we should take all possible steps to prevent foreigners from coming here and saying, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, that we have not started to put things in order, that we have not enough energy and do not care what kind of national housekeeping policy is followed.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman can reply to my criticism by quoting the wording of the Bill, but I ask him not to let this Bill be merely a palliative which will prevent the permanent rebuilding of these sites. I know he says it will not do so, but when I apply for permits I wonder how many different Ministries will say, "Are not the county council occupying that site? Have not they turned it into a most delightful place?" I somehow feel that it will not be so easy to get licences. I am opposed to leaving these sites in a mess, but I ask the Minister not to lose sight of the long-term view, which is the achieving of permanent rebuilding. It is no good letting years and years pass with people living in overcrowded conditions.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there is nothing to prevent the land from being handed back, provided it can be established that work will start on it almost immediately, but in practice that is very difficult. If the Minister interviews whoever is to do that work and comes to the conclusion that he is a genuine person who has sufficient money and men to do the work, and that it is merely a question of waiting for the necessary legal authority, then the provisions of Clause 7 will be extremely valuable. Nevertheless, I can assure him that I have tried my utmost to repair houses in various parts of London, without any monetary gain in view, only to find very often that the process has been continually one of starting and then having to stop. I could give instances where that has happened five times.
I have myself said to the right hon. Gentleman "Please do not do anything about this because I have a personal interest, and I want you to see what is happening." It concerned a house in Hampstead Road, where the rooms were to be let at £1 or less a week—perhaps

only 15s.—on which there is no possible return. Seven or eight thousand pounds must have been spent on that house, only for the local authority to say they intended to acquire it compulsorily. Then followed another notice in which they said they did not intend to acquire it compulsorily, so back went the builders to start again. But then somebody else came along. Three times the work was stopped on that house. That is only put forward as an illustration, and not in any way as a grouse.

Mr. Bevan: If cost of works houses are not being rebuilt at the present time, it is entirely the fault of the owner.

Colonel Dower: Oh, no.

Mr. Bevan: Oh, yes. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must accept my assurance.

Colonel Dower: No.

Mr. Bevan: But he must, with respect. I have lifted the ceiling from the price of any house which can be rebuilt. It is only a little while ago that we lifted the ceiling from £5,000 to £6,000. There are few of them, and one of the advantages of this Bill will be to force the owners to make up their minds whether to rebuild. There is no bar on the cost of rebuilding cost of works houses.

Colonel Dower: I do not want to cross swords with the right hon. Gentleman, because we are all in agreement with this Bill. I do not know what he means by the word "bar," but I will give an instance where it has been practically impossible to carry on. The building was started after the plans had been got out a long time before. It was then stopped because the local authority had decided to make a compulsory purchase.

Mr. Sparks: How did it come about that the building was started?

Colonel Dower: The local authority had given their consent, but they then revoked the original licence. The house is 209 and 209A Hampstead Road. Licence after licence has been stopped there; when the work started a gentleman came along with a pail and some notices which he pasted up along the whole street.

Mr. Bevan: We will certainly make inquiries, but I should like to point out


that I have instigated some investigations where it was obvious that cost of works houses were not being rebuilt, as I was anxious to get on with the rebuilding. I am trying to find out why the houses are not being rebuilt. Sometimes it is because there is a remainder lease and the holder has such a dwindling interest that he has not bothered. We have a conflict between the leaseholder and the landlord. It is our desire to get these houses rebuilt, but we are not dealing here with sites for houses but for business premises.

Colonel Dower: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has no ulterior motives and is anxious to get on with the rebuilding, but the fact remains that the moment a person tries to rebuild he meets all sorts of difficulties. In this case, the War Damage Commission came down and said they would not pay any more money because they understood that the local authority intended buying. They said: "It is no good thinking you will get anything from us."

Mr. Sparks: rose—

Colonel Dower: If the hon. Member wishes to discuss the matter with me, I shall be delighted to do so outside the House. The War Damage Commission, Bromyard Avenue, and the St. Pancras Borough Council had a real set-to, and months and months went by. I would point out that the War Damage Commission do not necessarily pay a claim in full, even if it is absolutely genuine. Very often there is a 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. reduction.

Mr. Follick: On a point of Order. Is this Debate concerned with bombed sites or war damaged houses?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The Minister dealt with the point to which the hon. and gallant Member is now addressing himself.

Colonel Dower: I am not trying to take up the time of the House unnecessarily. I am merely indicating the practical difficulties people are up against, in spite of a willing Minister and all the best will in the world. It is like trying to start up a car which for some unknown reason will not go. It is a point I want the Minister to bear in mind while pushing forward with the Bill. Let it not be

taken as a reason for a local authority not granting a licence for rebuilding.
We do not want to lose sight of our ultimate objective in providing for the necessary preliminaries, with which I am in full agreement. I am fully in agreement with voluntary plans being put forward, because if only we can get the tenants together they will do a better job than anyone else. I agree with the remarks which have been made about water tanks. I can give the right hon. Gentleman an instance of some of the difficulties I have had.
In the case of a water tank where the water was seeping into houses on either side, I tried to find out who was responsible for it. A magnificent car and a nice officer from the Fire Service came with me to see it, and we also had representatives of the local authority and the Ministry of Works down, but the water still went on seeping into the buildings, which contained perishable merchandise. Eventually a builder came along and said he could cure the trouble in about five minutes. I told him that he had better be careful as I did not know the legal position, but he went into Oxford Street and borrowed a pneumatic drill. In about half an hour he knocked a hole in the bottom of the tank. He was able to do more than the officials in saving the merchandise from being destroyed. Nearly all these water tanks are leaking, and something has to be done about them. If any Member found himself living in a basement next to a water tank, I can assure him that the walls would be damp morning and night. It is the responsibility of the Fire Service to remove any water which collects in these tanks.

Mrs. Braddock: No.

Colonel Dower: We can argue the question of responsibility until the cows come home.
All Members will agree that there is one Measure which has worked very well, the Landlord and Tenant Act, by which a tenant is not stung for goodwill and improvements to his property at the end of his lease. I should like to know why this provision which has been of very great benefit to both
sides is specifically excluded from the Bill. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think I have been too critical in my remarks. I have not


meant to be critical, and if there is anything I can do to make the Bill work and speed it on its way, I shall be only too pleased to do it.

5.0 p.m.

Mrs. Middleton: As one of the representatives for the most war-damaged of our provincial cities, I want to give a cordial welcome to this Bill and to thank the Minister for having brought it forward. If I may say so, I believe that the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Colonel Dower) was wrong in suggesting that anyone who has either a licence
to repair his property, or has any likelihood of getting such a licence, will be adversely affected by the Bill. If he will look at Clause 11 (1, a) he will find the words:
that that permission … approval or licence has been granted or would be granted if applied for.
It is obvious from those words that anyone who wants to repair or rebuild his property, and who has a licence to do so or has any hope of getting a licence, would not be in any way hampered by the Bill. It is only if he neglects to do so that the local authority is empowered to take action.
The speech of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) made me think that in his cogitations over the weekend he had laid awake at night thinking of all the possible legal difficulties which would arise under the Bill, and that, falling asleep, his cogitations had turned into the nightmares which he has described to us today.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I hope the hon. Lady will not accuse me of having indulged in a lost weekend.

Mrs. Middleton: In all our blitzed towns and cities there are still great problems of reconstruction outstanding, problems due, in the first place, to the extent of the damage caused by the enemy during the war and problems that today are not unconnected with the exigencies of our national recovery. The physical rehabilitation of our bombed damaged cities is turning out to be a much longer job than most people thought it would be when the war was in progress. I am not complaining about that; I realise that when Hitler sat in his shelter, contemplating the possibility

that Germany would be faced with no alternative to unconditional surrender, but, at the same time, gloating over the fact that the impact of two world wars on Great Britain's economy would make our recovery completely impossible, he was probably nearer to the truth than most people in this country thought he was at that time. Indeed, I am reckless enough to assert that but for the fact of this Government he might have been altogether right.
Those of us who live in bomb damaged cities firmly believe that our national recovery must come first, and that reconstruction within our own cities must take second place to the exigencies of that recovery. That, of course, inevitably leads to delays which, together with the stupendous size of the problems which have to be faced in some cities, such as that which I represent, have caused hardship to private citizens and a depressing environment for those who have to live in those cities. The Bill will do something, although perhaps only a little, to ease the hardship of private citizens who are not able to rebuild at present, in that their land will be leased and they will get some compensation for its use. It may do a great deal to eradicate the depressing environment in which so many people in bombed cities have to live.
I should like to support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Paddington (Captain Field) in urging the Minister to see whether it is not possible for the Exchequer to make a grant towards the cost of this work. Most of the work on which local authorities would engage under the Bill is work of a non-remunerative character, work for which they will have to bear the entire cost. Our bomb damaged cities are already bearing a heavy load of expenditure in reconstruction. Many have lost a considerable amount of rate income as a result of the damage which has been caused. In view of the fact that work such as laying out gardens will not be remunerative expenditure, in the main, I suggest that the Minister should give another thought to this matter, confer with the Treasury and see whether some help cannot be given.
I had an illustration of the kind of thing which can be done under the Bill only last weekend, when I was visiting


people in a corner of my constituency where a bombed site was creating great difficulty for housewives in the neighbourhood. It had become a dumping ground for refuse, dust from the site was blowing into open windows of adjacent houses during the hot summer weather and housewives were finding it quite impossible to maintain a reasonable standard of cleanliness, both during the dusty weather in the summer and the recent muddy weather, because nothing had been done to clear and fence the site. I am conferring with the local authority about this particular case to see whether anything can be done to help even before this Bill becomes law, but I doubt whether power resides in the local authority at present to deal with this particular nuisance. It will be a great boon to many people who have to live adjacent to bombed sites when the Bill is passed and put into operation.
Some of the worst cases of nuisance occur not in premises that can be taken over under the Bill but where a cost of works payment has been made to a property owner in respect of nonresidential property and where, because of the nature of the building, it is not possible today to get a licence to carry out the work which needs to be done. I expect that all who live in blitzed towns and cities can call to mind many instances of that sort, where cost of works awards have been made in respect of shells of buildings which are being used for all kinds of practices, not only by children but the less responsible type of adult to the great nuisance both of the local authority and the citizens. I wish we could extend the powers of the Bill to enable a local authority to do something in such cases.
All who have lived in bombed cities have seen cases where ingenuity and initiative have led to the creation of a garden out of a desert. I am sure the House will forgive me if I refer to an experience I had of this kind, not in a British but in a German city. On my first visit to Hamburg, following the war, I was taken by the occupation authorities to see the bombed dock area at the east end of the town. There I saw mile after mile of complete destruction—a desert of destruction. But, in the midst of all this, a working-class middle-aged woman,

who told me that she had had no previous experience of gardening, but who was depressed by her surroundings, living, as she was, in the bombed basement of the house of her former residence, had set to work to make a garden for herself. That little garden which she had made there in the wilderness of destruction was a spot of colour and beauty to everyone who saw it, and it brought refreshment not only to the eye but also to the spirit.
Under this Bill I believe our local authorities will be able to make oases of beauty of that sort in areas, where at the present time, there are still ugly relics of destruction. I am very grateful to the Minister for having brought this Bill forward, and of giving to local authorities the opportunity to do this work.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. J. H. Hare: I am very pleased to follow the hon. Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton). Like every Member of the House, I desire to associate myself with her remark that anything which this Bill can do to cheer up and make more beautiful the depressed areas formed by these bombed sites in our cities will be welcome. I have not had the privilege of seeing the garden to which she referred, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) mentioned, in this City of London some very ugly spots, which were eyesores, have been turned into pleasant gardens.
I should like to add my voice to the general praise which has been given to the principle of the Bill. I was surprised at the passages which the Minister had with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford. In his opening speech the Minister made it quite clear that it was not his intention in this Bill to prevent private individuals from developing sites. He argued that, far from that, it was still his intention in every way to encourage private individuals to go forward with the development of these sites if they had the opportunity to do so. For that reason I was surprised that he seemed to resent the two points made early in his speech by my hon. Friend, which affected the liberty of the subject.
In introducing the Bill the Minister said that, far from giving a consent to an


application from a local authority merely on the application being read by him, he would make every possible investigation to see whether or not the individual to whom the site belonged could be granted a licence or planning powers to go ahead with its development. When my hon. Friend suggested that on the Committee stage of the Bill it would be wise to insert a provision that agreement for the requisitioning of these sites should always be tried before compulsory powers were used, the Minister did not seem to agree. He did not seem to appreciate that it was a valid point that, in common justice, there should be some right of appeal. Under paragraph 3 of the Schedule to the Bill, all the Minister has to do is to give notification in writing. With the best intention in the world, the Minister may make a thorough examination of a case, but it is the basic right of a private individual to state his case in public if he thinks the Minister is wrong, and that is something which this Parliament should do its best to preserve.
I should like to say a word or two on a subject which was mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for North Paddington (Captain Field) the hon. Member for Sutton and other hon. Members—the question of some greater contribution from the Exchequer towards the development and beautification of these bombed sites. The Minister, judging from his opening speech, appreciated that there would be considerable criticism on those lines. He said, "There is something in this Bill which, in the minds of many, will be a defect." He was right. The statement in the Financial Memorandum to this Bill that there will be little or no expense on local rates or on the Exchequer is true when it is regarded nationally, but this is not a national problem. It is a very isolated problem, affecting only a few cities. London, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Coventry and a few others—I do not want to go through a long enumeration—are the principal ones concerned. It is a limited problem, and in many of the areas where there has been severe bomb damage there is often a very limited income from rates.
It is true that in many areas a great deal has been done, but a great deal more remains to be done. The cost of this scheme will fall very heavily on a limited number of cities. In those cities where

they get the benefit of the Exchequer equalisation grant they will continue to receive extra assistance by an increase in their grant. As has been pointed out, that does not apply to London at all. We should think of London for a moment. I have a certain interest in this matter, because I am a member of the London County Council, and therefore my interest in matters affecting London is very great. London has a vast number of these bombed sites, which will cost a great deal of money to take over and lay out in a decent way. Many of these sites are in the very poor boroughs, Southwark, Bermondsey and the East End. They are in boroughs which have not the finances to do this work, and I do not believe they will be able to take any steps under this Bill.
There remains the London County Council. It is a body which together with the Metropolitan boroughs, can take its share in a general scheme affecting Greater London. There, again, I am certain that the feeling of those on the London County Council will be that we shall assist, but we feel that this represents something which should be contributed to by the nation as a whole, and that we should not be called upon to bear the whole cost. This Bill is connected with the Festival of Britain, and everyone who listened to the Minister will reecho his view that we do not want foreigners, who will come here in large numbers in 1951, to go away saying that we are untidy-minded and bad housekeepers. The Festival of Britain is a national project, and not one for which the ratepayers in any one city should contribute the major portion of the cost.
Therefore, when it is necessary to make payments as a result of enemy action, why not follow the practice adopted in the case of the clearance of rubble and debris and the development of blitzed areas, under the grants made available by the Town and Country Planning Act? Why should this particular form of war damage be treated in a different way? These blitzed sites are the result of the hail of bombs and rockets which descended in the grim war years. Cities like London, Southampton, Portsmouth, and so on, will be proud to make some contribution to this very excellent purpose which the Minister has in mind, but I feel that the Exchequer also should help.

5.21 p.m.

Mrs. Braddock: I think this Bill will be particularly useful to those local authorities who wish to benefit from it, but it will be quite useless for dealing with other local authorities because it contains no compulsion at all. A local authority which does not want to do anything will not take any steps in the matter. For my sins I happen to be a member of a local authority. Liverpool has done, perhaps, the least in straightening up the blitzed sites since the war finished. I think it is true to say that the central areas of Liverpool are the most disgusting in the whole of the country. No effort has been made to deal with the skeletons of buildings that are left and which week by week are deteriorating as a result of children going into them and because of the failure to build up the rubble which has fallen. Nobody is prepared to do anything about it.
When this Bill becomes an Act it will not compel the local authority in Liverpool to do anything at all. Knowing Liverpool as I do, and knowing that it is governed from a political point of view by a Conservative majority, the leader of which is much more interested in architecture than he is in straightening up the centre of the city, I do not think this Bill will have much effect in Liverpool at all. We have tried, through the local authority, to get agreements made with the owners of private property which has been blitzed, and every difficulty has been put in our way. Perhaps I may quote one or two of the difficulties so that the Minister may realise the difficulty under which we in Liverpool are labouring.
It was suggested that these blitzed sites in the central areas of the city which were not going to be used for some time and which were privately owned, should be used as playgrounds, particularly in the densely populated areas in the centre of Liverpool. Some negotiations took place with the owners, who said, "If the local authority want to take over these blitzed sites and want something done with them they must do it all. We are not prepared to do anything. In addition, who will take responsibility for any accidents that may happen to children playing on these private blitzed sites? "The private owners were not prepared to take any responsibility if an accident arose out

of the land being filled up or spread over with clinkers and the stuff that comes from the electric supply stations, or if the children climbed over the railings instead of going through the gates. Neither the local authority nor the private owners would take the responsibility. In consequence, nothing was done and the sites remained in exactly the same condition.
The other matter that has been under consideration is the length of time which the War Damage Commission are taking to settle negotiations about particular sites. The local authority will not touch a brick on a private site because the owner may say, "That was my brick and you had no right to move it at all. Because you have moved it I shall claim additional war damage compensation." As a result, struggles have taken place on the local authority. I have asked innumerable questions, some of which I shall quote to the Minister in a few moments with the answers which have been given. Nothing has been done. Questions have been raised whether, following an accident on one of these sites, the site was an unseen trap, and all the legal procedure has been gone through in the local council for the purpose of doing nothing.
Until there is some sort of compulsion on authorities like Liverpool, I am afraid that very little will be done at all. The matter has been approached from the point of view of health and whether these blitzed sites with bricks and rubble on them are a danger to health. The medical officer of health has said that bricks are not a danger to health, so that he cannot give authority for the removal of rubble from the blitzed sites. We are just getting nothing done on these areas in Liverpool.
We have in the central area of Liverpool an old graveyard the railings of which, with the surrounding places, were damaged during the blitz. There are over 620 bodies there on the top, with no protection of any sort, and with all sorts of rubble planted upon them, with children playing on the tomb stones and digging underneath to the vaults. In fact, in one section of Liverpool they were playing with skulls that they had got out of the vaults. Liverpool will do nothing about that. No steps have been taken to deal with it, although the matter has been raised with the local authority time and time again. I and other people have


drawn attention to it. The lack of railings resulted from the blitz; bombs dropped in the area, and the railings, the gate and the stone surround were knocked down. So there we have right in the centre, with buses passing backwards and forwards, 600 odd bodies of former prominent Liverpool citizens exposed to digging by children. Nobody is prepared to do anything about it at all.
When this Bill goes through, it will not force anybody in Liverpool to take any action. I would sooner have seen in a Bill of this sort some sort of compulsion placed on local authorities who are not prepared to do anything. It should be made their responsibility to clear these sites and make them less dangerous; and believe me, there are some very serious dangers in the centre of Liverpool. Perhaps from a political point of view I represent the biggest area of bad conditions in the centre of Liverpool.
A further matter which concerns us is what powers the local authorities have under this Bill when owners of property disappear and do not reappear until the local authority has done something to their property. There are plenty of sites in Liverpool the owners of which cannot be found. Nobody knows anything about them and the local authority will not do anything to any of the sites, because if they did, the owner on his return would claim in respect of the alteration which the local authority had made.
As far as the large sites are concerned, where there is going to be a lot of redevelopment, where industry and commerce is going on in the centre of Liverpool, those sites have been cleared up fairly well. The sections which have not been touched are those parts between shops and houses, perhaps between two shops or two houses, where a place has been partially demolished and parts of the building are sticking to the building next door. No attempt has been made to do anything about that.
Unless there is compulsion, the Minister should suggest to visitors to the Festival of Britain that if they want to look at something decent they had better keep away from Liverpool. The centre of Liverpool is a perfect disgrace, a bigger disgrace than I have seen in any area under any other local authority, and I do not think this Measure will persuade those who are governing Liverpool, from

the commercial point of view, at any rate, to take any further steps than they have already taken.
I have asked questions extensively of the local authority in Liverpool, and I pressed for answers. The Leader of the Conservative Party in the council passed them to the Land Steward's Department. He passed the matter to the Director of Housing, he passed it to the Medical Officer of Health, and he passed it back again to the council. It was a sort of vicious circle, and so we got nowhere. I asked questions on 7th September this year. If I read the questions and answers to the House perhaps the Minister will get some idea of the peculiar situation that we have in Liverpool.
My first question was:
What powers have the Corporation to remove debris from sites in the city belonging to private owners?
The answer was:
The Corporation has no powers to remove debris from privately owned sites unless the presence of the debris is injurious to health so as to constitute a statutory nuisance; and even in such cases the corporation can only act if the owner fails to do so following an order of the court. A survey has been recently undertaken by the Medical Officer of Health, who states that no site was found in such a condition that it could be deemed to be injurious to health within the meaning of the Public Health Act, 1936.
The second question was:
What powers the Corporation have to require private owners to remove debris?
The answer was:
The corporation can require owners to remove debris where it is injurious to health. The corporation may also possibly be able in extreme cases to take action under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, if it could be established that the amenity of the area was seriously injured by the condition of any particular site.
The third question was:
Have any steps been taken by the corporation to require owners to remove debris?
The short answer to that was:
No.
The fourth question was:
What steps have been or can be taken to prevent rubbish being dumped on vacant sites in the city?
The answer was:
It would seem that the only steps which can be taken are either to provide permanent watchmen on sites or to provide very substantial fencing around sites.


The fifth question was:
Have the corporation any powers to prevent debris and rubbish being dumped on vacant sites?
The answer was:
Not unless the sites are owned by the corporation, in which case the corporation can only prevent the debris and rubbish being dumped by taking civil proceedings if the offender can be caught.
The sixth question was:
Has any attempt been made to get co-operation with private owners to clean up and keep clear vacant sites in the city?
The answer in this case was:
There has not been any general approach to private owners, but in certain cases where complaints have been received the attention of the owners of the sites has been drawn to the complaints.
I think hon. Members will see that Liverpool Corporation are not prepared to do very much unless they are compelled.
The Bill is probably the result of discussions that have been taking place with the Association of Municipal Corporations, who have been concerned in this matter. I hope the Bill is not merely going to say to local authorities: "You can, if you want to, but if you don't want to you need not do anything," even though there is to be a Festival of Britain and people may be coming to look at the area. The Bill will only be of use to the local authority which is prepared to take some action. When the Bill is being discussed I hope it will be possible to include a new Clause to deal with local authorities who do not want to do anything and are not prepared to do anything, whether it is a question of cost or not, or whether they do not want to do certain sections of the work. It would be advisable to put something into the Bill to compel them to commence action, at any rate, especially in areas like Liverpool, so as to clear up the difficulties and the debris.
My only other point is to ask whether something can be done about voluntary people or private organisations taking on the work. While Liverpool has an unemployment figure of about 16,000, there might be some resentment if people were discovered to be doing voluntary work that could otherwise be done by those now unemployed. We have tried to get the local authorities to use unemployed people to clear up the debris, but again

it comes down to cost. In areas about which I am talking, and particularly Liverpool, I am afraid very little will be done unless there is some compulsion or some possibility of obtaining a grant from the Government. To local authorities who will get on with the job the Bill gives an excellent opportunity, but with local authorities, particularly my own, who are not prepared to do anything, the Bill might as well not be on the Statute Book at all.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Lady thinks that the Bill cannot be good for Liverpool without compulsory powers placed by the Minister in the hands of the local authority, but I think she will recognise that if the Minister were to make these powers compulsory, he would also have to provide a grant. We cannot compel local authorities unless we make it financially possible for them to obey. The hon. and gallant Member for North Paddington (Captain Field) pointed out that in many cases the work would involve something like a 6d. rate. In these times, particularly against the background of our country's financial circumstances, can we expect the Minister of Health to advise the Prime Minister and the Cabinet that grants should be made available to help local authorities with work of this kind, desirable though it is, at a time when housing is to be cut down? Many of us felt considerable sympathy with the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton) and with my hon. Friend the Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare) who wanted grants to be made, but I cannot see how they could be made available in present circumstances.
In regard to Liverpool, I must inform the House that I am associated with companies which own property in Liverpool. Some of the property has been blitzed. It is only right to point out that although this property is in the centre of the city we have found the local authority most co-operative. Sites have been levelled, a car park has been established and the whole place has been cleaned up. It is running to the advantage of the local authority—

Mrs. Braddock: They were commercial premises?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Service premises in a commercial area, yes.
I should now like to raise a different point. The Bill was ordered to be printed on 1st November. It came into the hands of hon. Members on 3rd November. It has come up for Second Reading today, 8th November. In my submission, that is pretty quick going for a Bill which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) has pointed out, contains matters of considerable complexity, particularly in Clause 11, and other clauses dealing with war damage payments. I do not complain unduly that we have had so short a time between Thursday, on which we had the Bill, and Tuesday, on which we have the Second Reading, because we get used to that kind of speed and have to work pretty hard on our week-ends.
Will the Minister, if possible, delay the Committee stage so that the Bill is not taken upstairs straight away? We shall then have time to consult not only local authorities, whose views we want upon the financial implications of the measures of which they are invited to avail themselves, but also professional bodies who can and ought to advise us about matters of the complexity of war damage payments—value payments, cost of works payments and so on. I hope the Minister will give us reasonable time to take advice on such matters.
My second point is that, since the primary purpose of the enabling powers with which local authorities are to be invested is the correction of
a condition detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood,
a local authority which comes to the Minister and asks for compulsory powers ought to satisfy the Minister that the action which it proposes to take will improve the amenities of the area. I believe that in almost all cases it will do so.
I have been trying to think of some of the things which local authorities might want to do in availing themselves of the terms of the Bill. Laying out gardens is the obvious one, and that is referred to in the interpretation Clause. They might want to clear sites of such buildings as remain, level them and turn them into children's playgrounds, car parks, or pleasure gardens. They might also do as others are going to do and turn them into amusement departments, as is to be

done in part of Battersea Park in connection with the Festival of Britain, use them as exhibition sites, or even cover them with some kind of temporary buildings.
My third point is that I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give an assurance that neither the local authority nor anyone holding a lease under the local authority in the terms of the Bill should be given licences to do work which has been denied to the owners of the sites. I do not believe they will be and I believe that the whole thing will be cleared up by an assurance from the Minister, but I cannot see it in the Bill, although I believe it is implied that they would not be. We ought to be quite clear that that will not occur.
Here is another matter in which I must declare my interest. Companies with which I am concerned
own damaged sites in various parts of the country, and one of those sites is one of the most conspicuous examples of bomb damage in the West End of London. It is an island site on the north side of Oxford Street in what is, I suppose, one of the most valuable shopping areas in the world. It is a great blitzed area with nearly 300 feet frontage to Oxford Street, completely open and exposed. I mention this because I believe that when hon. Members have personal experience of these things it sometimes helps in framing legislation to realise the background—

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is that the site where exhibitions have already been held?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: We have let the site free for a number of Government-sponsored exhibitions and have let a corner site free for the last two or three years to the Ministry of Agriculture in connection with recruiting of harvest help and so on.
As long ago as the summer of 1946—over three years ago—we submitted plans to the Ministry of Works for screening the site with a single row of temporary shops consisting of basement and a single storey along the whole frontage and going back to a depth of 50 to 55 feet. We made it clear that we should use practically no materials which were required for the housing drive. Partition walls would be of breeze blocks and not of bricks, and the shop fronts would be done by shop-front specialists, who are not required for


the housing drive. There would be a minimum of timber, and as far as possible we would use salvaged materials, Moreover, we asked the technical Departments of the Ministry of Works if they could advise us as to any other way in which we might economise in the use of materials.
We put forward that plan in the summer of 1946 with the support of the St. Marylebone Borough Council on the north side and the Westminster City Council on the south side of Oxford Street as an attempt to clean up Oxford Street and make that wealthy shopping area as presentable as possible. These local authorities wanted to attract American and other visitors to this country, and while it was perhaps understandable that we should want these visitors to see some of our bombed areas, we thought it was also desirable that they should see that this country had taken steps to clean up the mess in our cities as much as possible.
The application was put up several times and was supported by the Ministry of Works, but it was turned down every time by the Board of Trade. It was put up every year and supported again by the local authorities on the grounds that we wanted to clean up Oxford Street and make it as tidy as possible, using practically no material which would hold up the housing drive. Year after year for three years the application has been turned down. We have now had a licence to screen a small part of the frontage, and that work has been done. I hope that there will be another licence for a further part.
I mention this because the House should realise that the owners of the sites in many cases are not at fault. I believe that in very few cases are they at fault. They have done everything possible to try to clean up our cities, but they have been prevented from doing so by their inability to obtain licences. We want to be quite clear when discussing this in Committee that we do not blame people for failure to do work which, in many instances, they have all along been anxious to do but have been prevented from doing by Government prohibition of one kind or another.

Mr. Ellis Smith: That is a very fair point, but will the hon. Gentleman carry

it to its logical conclusion? It may be that it is a question of priority.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I could not agree more. I do not at all suggest that we ought to have priority for trading purposes over others whose need is greater, although in our case, at the request of the Board of Trade, we engaged in work in connection with the export trade which increased our need for stockroom facilities, thus putting great pressure on our retail trading activities. However, I leave that aside.
I agree with the hon. Member that there must be priorities in these matters, but when we are considering cleaning up the frontages of Oxford Street, doing so with little of the material that could be used in the housing drive and using, as we wanted to do, our own labour which had no W.B.A. priority, there were circumstances which might have made it reasonable for the Government Department concerned to allow us three, two or even one year ago to do exactly what they now ask local authorities to do in this Bill. Yet for three years we have been knocking our heads against what seemed to be a brick wall, and at last the Government are asking the local authorities to do work which we would have done a long time ago at our own expense.
In the case of compulsion an aggrieved party is given no right of appeal against the decision of the Minister although he can put his case in writing to the Minister, the Minister decides whether his land is to be requisitioned and intimates his decision to the local authority, which then takes action. Some of us will want to press this point on the Committee stage. I am sorry that it is not possible for the aggrieved party—that is to say, the individual or company whose land is being taken—to be given the right to state his case in person to a tribunal or to representatives of the Minister. In other, words, there ought to be a right of appeal or at least the right to appear in person and to state a case.
I know the Minister interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) several times to reiterate that no one ought to be aggrieved if his land were taken because it would not delay him in being able to do the


work himself as soon as he received permission. I am not quite sure about that. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Colonel Dower) that when a private owner has once had to give up his site, by compulsion perhaps, to a local authority, and that local authority either does the work itself or passes the site over under lease to someone else who does the work, it will be much more difficult, and certainly there will be delay in that individual getting his site back. Public money will have been spent on it—

Mr. Ellis Smith: Hear, hear.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: My hon. Friend agrees that public money will have been expended and, if I have judged his intervention aright, he is of the view that if the local authority has expended the ratepayers' money in clearing up a site, it ought not to be given up.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Hear, hear.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: That is what I thought. That is just about what will happen.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I hope so.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: That reinforces what I feel, that once a local authority has taken possession and has done work on the site, it will be much more difficult for the individual to regain possession although his licences have come through. In any case, he can only regain possession with the consent of the Minister and that will delay things still further. It is quite evident that individuals will be aggrieved if their land is taken by compulsion. It is all the more important for that reason, that there should be a right of appeal.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) has followed the line taken by the Opposition since the commencement of the Debate on this Bill. Apart from one or two passing platitudes about how nice it will be for everybody to see a little green where there is now a lot of rubble, they come back to the same argument of the interests of the property owner. It tends to teach us on this side of the House the lesson that whatever Bill we discuss here, hon. Gentlemen

opposite are quite prepared and willing to protect the privileges of their own class.
My own view is that if the local authority has taken over a site, developed it and made it attractive, and has done something which, to a large extent, the owner has not done, I do not think the local authority ought to give it up readily and willingly, and that it should be a matter for negotiation.

Colonel Dower: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman because I would not like him to be under any misapprehension? Why he has introduced this party question, I do not know, but a number of us would be thoroughly in favour of compulsory acquirement. If a local authority spends a lot of money on the land, then let them compulsorily acquire it.

Mr. Mellish: I accept that. It is a change of front and I am pleased to hear there will be some co-operation on those lines; but to date all the remarks I have heard from the other side referred to the poor property owner whose property is an eyesore to everyone who goes near it and, if the local authority touches it, he wants assurances that he will get it back.
My reason for intervening is that, like most hon. Members on this side of the House, I have a parochial interest in this matter in that I am concerned about my own local authority not as regards the property owner but as regards the people of the borough. With my hon. Friend the Member for West Bermondsey (Mr. Sargood) I represent a constituency which bore the full brunt of the enemy attack, particularly at the beginning of the war. I do not want to adopt the attitude of "I have had better bombs than you have had," but my' borough has had more bomb damage from the point of view of acreage than any other borough in this country.
It is fair to say that Hitler tore the heart out of Bermondsey but that he did not destroy its soul, and Bermondsey today is a borough of 289 bombed sites. We have contacted some of the more progressive employers and have made arrangements with them whereby they will undertake certain works on their own account to make their sites more beautiful than they are at the moment, and some have agreed to foot the bill. That shows what can be done by negotiation


tiation when a borough council is prepared to co-operate with good owners.
Under this Bill as it stands we cannot go on to do the things we want to do because we shall get no financial aid from the Government since ours is one of the London boroughs which do not qualify for any Treasury grant. It is all right for the Minister to say what ought to be done. We want to do it, but let me give my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary some indication of the cost. My Council obtained an estimate for fencing 21 housing sites controlled by them. It amounted to £3,000. We have 289 sites with which we are expected to deal and our rates at the moment are 19s. 4d. in the pound. It is not our intention to spend money on these sites unless we get some aid, not only from the War Damage Commission which is a doubtful source of income; we want to know before we beautify these sites whether or not the Treasury are prepared to help much further in this direction. The financial provisions of the Bill take no account of this burden.
The local authorities which already, under the Local Government Act, 1948, qualify for a share of the Exchequer equalisation grant are entitled to further grants—and Birmingham comes out of this very well—

Mr. Shurmer: We do.

Mr. Mellish: —but those authorities who, like London, have no such shares will be required to meet this new burden without Government assistance. A London borough such as mine, with all the difficulties facing it today, cannot be expected to go ahead with the proposals of the Bill without help. I beg the Parliamentary Secretary, before we reach the Committee stage, to come to some arrangement with local authorities such as mine to deal with this matter.
Under the Bill the first criterion for action by a local authority is whether or not land is deemed to be detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood. A further condition is that the land must be war damaged. The Bill does not extend to land which has become detrimental to amenities by reason of industrial development—for example, slag heaps and similar eyesores. Bermondsey is a typical borough where, because of

industrial development, we have sites which were derelict even before the war. The property-owning democracy, we are told, are so much concerned with people and their welfare, yet Bermondsey has been the victim of industrial development and exploitation on their part. Because of an absence of planning in the past, residential areas mingle closely with industrial premises.
Firms have gone from Bermondsey, throwing many people out of work in consequence, hoping that at a later date they would be able to sell their property. Because of the neglect which followed, places of this kind have become eyesores, but are still owned by private employers. They are not, of course, classified as war damage. One of the major problems which now faces my council and others is whether to beautify only those sites which are damaged by war because we might receive a little help for doing so, and whether or not we should neglect the other kind of site.
Bermondsey has already anticipated the Bill by calling for a voluntary effort on the part of its people, who have done a fine job through voluntary organisations on a number of sites. Certain employers have co-operated with us, but our problem is so vast that we need aid from the Government on a national level before ever we can achieve the objects underlying the Bill.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Braddock: From the speeches I have heard it does not seem to me that there will be much chance of a great deal being done by the Bill. The owners of property, as was made evident by the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton - Kemsley), seem to regard the Bill as something which will give them a better lever to get licences from the Ministry of Works. If the Bill has done nothing else, it has given the hon. Member for West Aberdeen the chance of a good grumble about the way he has been treated by the licence issuing authority. He seems to forget, however, that the responsible Ministry dealing with shops has, apparently, considered his case time after time and come to the conclusion that no more shops are at present necessary in that part of Oxford Street.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: rose—

Mr. Braddock: Let me finish. As I know their site very well, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member and his company on the way they have tidied it up. I do not think, however, that we are justified in using concrete blocks and windows, or either metal or wood, which can be used in house building, for a purpose of this sort.
The Bill is a challenge to the people and to local government authorities. The Government, and my right hon. Friend who introduced the Bill, are to be congratulated on being well ahead of the community, whose conscience is becoming alive to the needs of the future. Probably for the first time in our history no one will be able to look back and say, "But for that Government we could not have done this, that or the other." Although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish) that it is a pity that the Bill is limited in scope to bombed damaged sites only, it represents a very good start. We have achieved the thin end of the wedge and the principle has been established. I have not the slightest doubt that during their next five years of power the Government will produce an amending Bill to rectify this deficiency.
Many of my colleagues have suggested that the Government would be wise to give financial help to local authorities who cannot at present meet the financial obligations which the Bill entails. It is somewhat difficult, however, for the Government, who are continually being called upon to provide bigger and better armaments, to find money for these purposes. If our responsibilities in other directions could be lessened—and we all hope that they will be lessened in the very near future; I know that the Government are working very hard to that end—I have not the slightest doubt that another amending Bill will be introduced when the Government will be enabled to free a lot of money for the furtherance of the very desirable objects of the Bill.
I do not regard the Bill as a short-term Measure. I know that the period of five years is referred to, but we shall not be able to clear up all the mess in this country within that time. I believe that in the not very distant future, especially with the better education and opportunities now given to them, young people will be asking "Why must we live next

door to a dump like that, with all this rubbish lying about? Cannot we do something to clear it up?" Immediately the Bill is enacted people will approach their local authority. The local authority, of course, will shake their heads—very often they know nothing about these matters—but the young people will point out that the Labour Government has passed a Bill giving them an opportunity of obtaining possession of the site with which they want to deal.
In the not very distant future many people who at present derive their enjoyment at dog racing, football matches and diversions of that kind will want to do something which will give them greater satisfaction. We know that most people are fond of gardening and turn to it as a recreation. There will come the spirit that not only must people's little back and front gardens look well, but that every open space must be as good as the best of our gardens. The Bill will give to local authorities the power to encourage this spirit, and it will not be very many years before the people, particularly the younger ones, will insist that the dumps dealt with in the Bill are cleared up. I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill. They are right in the forefront of public thought and, because they have done this in this year 1949, they will receive the thanks of the community at no very distant date.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Sparks: I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill, because I believe it will bring great advantages, particularly to those areas and constituencies which have suffered severely from enemy action. I cannot understand the criticism of the Bill which has come from some of the Members of the Opposition. It is quite clear that a number of war damaged sites are strewn about the country and have remained in a very bad condition for some years, and that in some cases, because of low priorities in the issue of licences for rebuilding, it may be some time before development can take place. If a site is derelict and strewn with rubbish and a liability to the owner, and then the Government say that they will take over the land until the owner is in a position to develop it, that they will spend money upon it, fence it in and also give compensation for the use of it until such time as the owner wants it, what


more do the Opposition want? I should have thought they would jump at such a proposal.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Surely the hon. Member is not suggesting that any hon. Member on this side of the House has said that in principle that is not a good thing? That has been said repeatedly, as I am sure he will agree. Criticism from this side has been directed to points of procedure under the Bill whereby it can be improved.

Mr. Sparks: I am glad that the hon. Member agrees that so far as that point is concerned the Bill is a good one, but he knows that in view of the general shortages in building materials there must be a system of priorities and the most urgent schemes should receive priority in the way of rebuilding.
I am not quite clear where the sanction for rebuilding on a cost of works site stands so far as housing is concerned in relation to the new policy of the Government as to private building of houses to let, or for sale. We know the Government have decided to reduce the number of private licences issued from now on. It is important that we should have a statement from the Minister as to whether cost of works schemes are included, or not included in that arrangement. I think that cost of works rebuilding schemes concerned with houses are quite separate and distinct from the question of private licences for general house building. That point should be stressed.
In my constituency we have suffered from enemy action, although not so badly as a good many London constituencies. We have a substantial number of large and small sites on which previously there were houses. Many of those houses were leasehold and the leases have not many more years to run. Consequently, the leaseholder has very little interest in the redevelopment of such sites as in a few years time he would lose possession completely. I feel there is a case to be made out for the local authority stepping in and doing something with such sites.
As has been emphasised by nearly everyone who has spoken from this side of the House, those sites are an eyesore to the community and are places where all kinds of rubbish is dumped to the

detriment of the area concerned. At the moment the local authority has no power to enter into possession of them, nor to fence them in. Also, there is no easy way of compelling an owner to fence such a site and, consequently, they remain an eyesore.
We suffer from a serious shortage of land in my constituency. We want more land for allotment purposes and we know that more food production is urgent. There are many people in my borough who would be glad to take over a little land and cultivate it as an allotment. What could be better than to make use of the vacant war damaged sites for cultivation of allotments, if only for a few years, thereby helping to increase the food production of the country?
I am quite satisfied that this Bill gives my local authority greater power to use vacant pieces of land, make the necessary improvement upon them and hand them over to a voluntary organisation to manage. In the case of allotments we have a live gardening association, which would manage these small sites for the local authority. Also, in a built-up area such as my constituency and many London constituencies, we seriously lack open spaces for the parking of cars and too many of our children have nowhere to play but in the streets. That is bad from a road safety point of view and from the health point of view. There are many bombed sites which could be used by the local authority as playing spaces for children, which would take them off the streets to places where they could play in safety, away from traffic. If for no other reason, I welcome the Bill because it will give local authorities power to make use of these open spaces in the general interests of the community and the improvement and increase of the amenities of the neighbourhood.
If there is one complaint I wish to make against the Bill, it is that which one or two hon. Members on this side of the House have already made. I do not think the Bill goes far enough as it limits the power of the local authority to temporary acquisition of these sites. I feel there is a sound case to be made out for the point of view, which has been put forward, that local authorities should have powers of compulsory acquisition in suitable cases so that a site may be permanently acquired. If it can be permanently


acquired, a local authority will more readily spend money on cleaning it up and laying it out, knowing that it is public property and will not be taken back in a short period of time. I hope my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will look at that point, because in built-up areas it is very difficult to get small parcels of land. This is a means by which the power of the local authority can be increased to enable it to acquire small sites for the general benefit of the community.
I hope the Bill will have a successful passage through the House and I am confident that it is a step forward in the right direction. I hope that as soon as it is placed on the Statute Book my right hon. Friend will follow it up and see that local authorities actually make use of these powers. It is all very well to give a permissive power in an Act of Parliament, but we ought to insist that where a Measure deserves an Act of Parliament it should be a duty and obligation on local authorities to carry out its provisions.
Otherwise we know that in many of these areas—Liverpool has been mentioned—the provisions of this Bill are likely to remain a dead letter because the people in control of the local authority are not interested in exercising these powers. At a later stage of the Bill there ought to be included in it an obligation upon local authorities to carry out its provisions if it is to be the Measure which we desire it to be in effecting a general improvement in standards of amenities throughout the country.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I wish to make some observations upon this Bill, to support a number of constructive suggestions made by my hon. Friends who have made appeals for direct financial grants to aid authorities in carrying out this work, and to conclude by making a short analysis of the Bill and by contrasting the treatment of those who suffered from five years' damage compared with the treatment of those who have suffered for 50 years.
Why and on what grounds or upon what basis has the period been laid down as "not exceeding five years." I know that the Bill states that the Minister has authority to increase the period to not more than 10 years, and it is upon that

aspect of the matter that I feel uneasy. Supposing, for example, that a local authority decides to take action under this Bill and as a result of that decision spends thousands of pounds. Too many speakers seem to have approached the problem in a rather narrow way, with the exception of one or two Members on this side of the House.
Let us consider the case of huge cities which
have had large areas absolutely devastated, Manchester for example. Upon one huge area in that city, known as the Victoria site, many buildings stood, including a large hotel which was completely devastated. Large cellars were left and months and months of work had to be done on the site, first in taking out the valuable material there, then filling in the site, levelling it off and then putting good soil over that huge area, afterwards laying it out with grass, trees and shrubs. That remarkable change needed to be effected many years ago in a large built-up area like that, but because the site was not available the change could not be carried out. But what is to be the position of the local authority, which has carried out that work and incurred that expenditure, at the end of five years or at the end of 10 years?
According to the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) this Bill is complicated by the fact that 10 other Acts of Parliament are involved. Is that so?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The point I made was that 10 other Acts of. Parliament are either referred to or applied in the course of this Bill and in order properly to understand it one has to refer to those Acts.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I have had no legal experience in matters of property interests but I have had a fair amount of experience about what could take place in the case of workman's compensation prior to the Government introducing the new Measure dealing with that subject. I know the legal quibbling that went on for months. When property interests are affected how much time can be taken up? That must be a very serious consideration when nine or 10 other Acts of Parliament are involved. I shall return to that point later.
The Victoria site in Manchester to which I have referred now attracts the


admiration of all those who pass it and who knew it as it was at the termination of hostilities. What has been done is a great improvement and that site is now one of beauty. This is the kind of improvement which is required in all our cities, and in particular in places where war damage has been done. It is the kind of improvement which is urgently necessary. The people who own the sites have now had four years since the termination of hostilities, and in my view now that it is proposed that action may be taken on the grounds specified in the Bill, such sites ought not, after expenditure on the scale of which I am speaking, to revert to their previous ownership; there should be facilities to enable that change to be brought about. Accordingly, I believe it is wrong to limit the benefits of this Bill to a maximum period of 10 years.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Surely what the hon. Member is now arguing is that there is a requirement in certain cities for certain open spaces in perpetuity? Surely he would agree that in respect of those spaces the proper procedure to be followed is that of compulsory purchase so that they will never revert to the present owner? That is not what this Bill is about.

Mr. Ellis Smith: If that is done that is all right, but there have been many difficulties in the way of doing that. Progress in that way has been held up for so long that what I am arguing is that if improvements are brought about by the method proposed in the Bill the period of duration of them should not be fixed at five years or a maximum of 10 years.
I have looked at Clauses 7, 8 and 9, and while I
am bound to be guided by others upon this matter I am very suspicious that the provisions will inevitably give rise to protracted legal proceedings. Once that process begins it can occupy a good deal of time. I very much welcome Clause 12, which deals with the disposal of rubble, etc., especially subsection (1). That seems to be very satisfactory, but when this rubble has been
cleared away by the local authority is any charge to be made to the owners of the land? What is to be the position in that respect? That should be cleared
up by the Parliamentary Secretary.

One of my hon. Friends has said that this clearance might cost his authority a 10d. rate and several of my hon. Friends who have spoken have also been very concerned about the effect upon the rates. [Interruption.] It is a 6d. rate in one case but 10d. in another.
As the whole nation was in the war the logic is that the whole nation should accept the responsibility for financing these improvements. That is surely elementary logic and reasonableness. I should say that London suffered most, then probably Plymouth, Hull and Bootle. Other places suffered, but there are many parts of the country which did not suffer. Is it right, therefore, that the financial responsibility for the restoration of these sites or for their temporary improvement should be borne by the local authorities within those limited areas which suffered from bombing? Should they not be borne by the whole nation in view of the fact that we were all involved in the war?
Turning to another aspect of the matter, Manchester for example is really concerned about the urgent need for the provision of car parks. Will local authorities have the right to carry out work of this description, because "amenities" is open to a wide interpretation. Local authorities can say, "This is an amenity, that is an amenity," and there can be great divergence of opinion as to what is an amenity and what is not. When the reply to the Debate is being made I should like to know whether it would be an amenity—in my view it would—to provide car parks with modern facilities on sites with which this Bill is concerned in large cities such as Manchester. But if this expenditure is incurred on work of that description what will be the position at the end of five years, or at the end of the maximum period of 10 years? In view of the alterations that would be carried out is it fair that the local authorities should remain in this uncertain position?
In many industrial areas we have had damaged sites for 50 years. Acts of slum clearance have been carried out but in many cases nobody has bothered about how those sites have been left. Rubble, glass and bricks have been left and there is a terrible state of affairs in those areas. I consider that this Bill is a step in the right direction, but surely when this


action of a limited character is being taken, which mainly arises out of what is to take place in 1951, it is time that we who represent areas which have suffered not for five, but for 50 years, should stake out our claim. I support what is to happen in 1951; no one supports it more wholeheartedly than I do. But take the city which I have the privilege of representing. It is undermined and has suffered for 50 years from the acute problem of subsidence. The town hall is propped up, churches, chapels and schools have wide cracks in the walls, roads are tilted, and the greatest problem of all is the housing of the people in those areas.

Mr. Shurmer: Private enterprise has done that. Make them pay for it.

Mr. Ellis Smith: What I am saying is that if it is right to take action of this limited character, then it is all the more urgently necessary that action should be taken where wealth has poured out for generations. No matter whose responsibility it is, the time has arrived when the whole nation which has benefited from what has been taken from beneath these cities, should face up to its responsibilities and assist the local authorities.

6.33 p.m.

Sir William Darling: The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) has put this discussion on a very much more correct line than some other hon. Members who have spoken. The truth is that the English have always been an extremely untidy people. This Bill is merely the casting of some rose leaves on the muddy waters of English life. Local authorities in the past have had power to do what they liked with their own, and yet they have allowed their town halls to be propped up and their roads to be disturbed—

Mr. Ellis Smith: I had better remember Parliamentary procedure, but this is very provocative. It is really the whole nation that has benefited from the millions of pounds of wealth in the form of coal which has been taken from under those cities.

Sir W. Darling: I entirely agree that the nation has benefited by the removal of coal from underneath these cities, but the fact remains that this Bill brings nothing new to the powers of local authorities.

In the general sense they always have had the power and authority to make their cities places of decency, of beauty and of life. It does not require this Bill to give them that opportunity. But in many instances their property has been neglected. I repeat that the English are a wasteful and feckless people. Their public parks prove the truth of my contention. They belong to the people, they are owned by the people and controlled by the local authority; and yet the litter in them is a disgrace.
This Bill, presented by the Minister of Health and supported by the Lord President, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, does not impress me very much. If ever there was a sprat to catch a mackerel, this kind of legislation would certainly come within that category. This is not an important piece of legislation. Anything that is likely to be done could be done by common agreement. If the local authority said to the proprietors of property in bombed areas, "You can do nothing with this property, you cannot develop it, because of the Town and Country Planning Act; you cannot develop it, because of the shortage of labour; you cannot develop it, because there are no materials; you cannot develop it, because you have no licence; so will you allow the local authority to have possession of it and do it up?"—if the local authority said that, there is no owner of that kind of property anywhere in the United Kingdom who would not welcome the opportunity to hand it over, with no charge whatsoever, for the local authority to carry out their purpose.
I agree that there is a big field in that direction but I do not agree that it requires this House to stimulate the action required. Intelligent local authorities accustomed to doing things, have already done it. I will not particularise the local authorities to which I refer, but their work will be known to anyone who happens to know the constituency which I represent.
This Measure is mainly a London Measure. I see the hand of the Lord President of the Council seeking to get more public money for the resuscitation and rehabilitation of London. I am one of those who believe—and I have said it before—that it may well be a bad


thing to re-build London. I consider that London is much too large. These unfortunate happenings during the war might well be a blessing. I would reduce progressively the population of London by 100,000 every 10 years, and the rest of the community would greatly benefit. London as devised under the London County Council—a centralised government for many years—has become a sprawling web requiring much public money to be spent on it to keep it in some sort of order. That is the duty of the London County Council who require no Bill of this kind to make them do their duty. Have the London County Council asked any proprietor of a devastated site to allow them to put it in order, and been refused? I know of no such application which has been refused.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): We cannot allow the hon. Member to go on in this way without some sort of elucidation of the point. It is simply because there is so much doubt about the power of local authorities that this Bill has been presented.

Sir W. Darling: I am willing to agree that there may be some doubt about the powers of local authorities, but can the Parliamentary Secretary tell me of any proprietor of a devastated site who has refused permission to the local authority to tidy up that site and make it into a place of beauty, decency and order? I suggest that he knows of no such instance, and I should be happy to know of any local authority which has made such an intelligent advance and has been rebuffed.
Many fruitful suggestions have been made in this Debate. The suggestion by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) is an admirable one, that the provision of children's playgrounds and car parks, are uses to which these devastated sites might be put. Every opportunity should be given to do that kind of work. But we are told that there is a shortage of labour and that labour should not be diverted unnecessarily. Is this the best way that labour could be utilised, in this titivating and decorating of our bomb damaged areas? I am glad to see that under Clause 9 there are very severe restrictions. I like to think that local authorities will not be encouraged to plunge into this expenditure but rather

that they will be discouraged from doing so. They will do the decent minimum and content themselves with simply tidying up in the present circumstances. More than that, with the present shortage of labour and materials, I do not think they should be encouraged to do.
There is one suggestion I should like to make. In one case these places have been used to provide seats for aged people and persons who like to look at the traffic passing by. The provision of seats for aged people might well be considered. There is one aspect which will not be very popular because it runs counter to the sentiments which most Government supporters hold. Many of these sites have been artistically improved by the erection of suitably placed posters. There is a notable one in Piccadilly which is the example I have in mind. There is a good deal of prejudice against them, but I have always favoured posters. I have gathered a number of interesting facts in an otherwise not very well-furnished mind from the posters—even from those issued by the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Transport and by His Majesty's Government. Let us use some of these sites for posters. It would encourage the artists, it would develop the printing trade, and there are many who can only assimilate knowledge when it is put before them in that fashion.
In this Bill the Government thought that they would put up something of a sentimental character
which would attract people of untidy minds who have done nothing in the past, to look forward to doing something in the future. I do not think that very much will be done. The local authorities are already engaged in far too many activities of too diverse a kind to go far in this direction. But I hope that some city architect or planning officer, or some city committee, will make a start in this matter. Heaven knows, a start should be made very soon in some of the areas which are supposed to have been devastated by capitalism, which probably have been attacked by bombing, but which are living monuments to the untidiness of the English mind.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Royle: Most of us have been sitting here during the afternoon and part of the evening trying to bring our minds to bear upon this


Bill, but the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) walks into the Chamber at a very late stage in the Debate and engages in a lively attack upon a Bill which he does not seem to have studied very seriously. I would only say, when he introduces his frivolities in reference to England versus Scotland, that he might very profitably go to certain parts of that, in many ways beautiful city of Edinburgh, and, not very far from the Palace of Holyrood, he will find some of the worst slums in Europe. Before he starts to make an attack about the neglect of the City of London or any other part of England, I suggest that he might put his own house in order. I am sure that without coming South of the Border he could find much to curb his enthusiasm.
I want to come back to the Bill which concerns the whole of Great Britain. I shall be much more generous than the hon. Gentleman and say that I should like this Measure to apply to Scotland just as it applies to England.

Sir W. Darling: I think that the OFFICIAL REPORT will confirm that I never mentioned Scotland in the whole of my remarks. If the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the fact, I should like to tell him that this Bill applies to Scotland just as it applies to England.

Mr. Royle: I know quite well that the Bill applies to Scotland as it applies to England. I was merely about to express my fervent hope that it will be used in Scotland as much as it is used in England. We know that the hon. Gentleman did not mention Scotland during his speech. We have become accustomed to the hon. Gentleman's speeches over the past four and a half years, and we know the amount of seriousness to attach to them.
I cannot resist making a parochial speech concerning a city to which Manchester lies in close proximity—the city of Salford. It is a city about which we do not hear very much in this House, but it is one which is most interested in this Bill. Naturally, I think that those taking part in this Debate started with the question at the back of their minds of what will happen in their constituencies. As a result of this Bill I envisage a much brighter and more colourful Salford.
It is not without significance that the speeches made from this side of the

House have come from hon. Members whose constituencies suffered severely from war damage, whereas I think it would be fair to say that we have not had a single speech from an hon. Member opposite whose constituency was seriously damaged during the war. Our point of view has been that of deeply interested constituencies, whether industrial or dormitory. We have been wondering what this Bill will do for our constituencies, whereas it is not unfair to say that, in the main, hon. Gentlemen opposite have been concerned about the effect of this Bill on the private ownership of property. We face the issue in a very different mood from that of hon. Members opposite.
In my division at the next General Election there will be eight wards, one of which is a suburban ward. The remaining seven are in a state of squalor. That is not an exaggeration. It is a state of squalor which has existed since the Industrial Revolution and has become steadily worse. Unfortunately—or fortunately for the suburban ward—it happens that that suburban ward was the one which was not affected by war damage. In the seven miserable wards there was war damage. There is another factor which runs true to form. The suburban ward is the one which has the open playing spaces and parks for the children. The seven wards which are much poorer are almost completely devoid of open spaces and playing places for children.
I look at this Bill with those seven wards in my mind. I picture what could be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) said that this was a challenge to the local authorities. I shall return to my local authority from this House to beg of them to accept the challenge and to make use of these bombed spaces to bring some beauty into a city which is short of beauty. I welcome the Bill with tremendous enthusiasm. We can examine the snags and the difficulties and the other ten Acts of Parliament when we come to the Committee stage.
This House ought to tell the Minister of Health how we appreciate this opportunity for local authorities to take possession of these sites and to use them for five or ten years in an endeavour to make them attractive and thus to beautify the cities in which they exist. My


division is short of colour and I welcome an opportunity to bring colour to it. Whether or not in 1951 we shall all be enthusiastic about the Festival of Britain, I am satisfied that this Bill gives us a real opportunity to have a festival in Salford.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for West Salford (Mr. Royle) and many other speakers from this side of the House, I represent a constituency which was fortunate in not suffering a very great deal of war damage, and I am therefore conscious of the major defect of this Bill even more than I am of the advantages that it will bring to those local authorities which suffered more heavily in the war. Like my hon. Friend, I also represent a constituency with a surrounding neighbourhood much of which is squalid and which has been blitzed, not by war, but by a generation of industrial damage and neglect ever since the Industrial Revolution, and I deeply regret that, when the Ministry of Health was giving these powers to local authorities, they confined them as narrowly as they have done in this Bill.
I feel that I and many other hon. Members who represent similar constituencies will have to go to our hon. Friends like the hon. Member for West Salford and ask them to lend us some of their bomb stories, because that is the only way in which to get the powers we need to go into the areas of derelict land and clean them up. I can see quite a lot of anomalies arising under this Bill. I live in London in an area where there has been some bomb damage and a good deal of neglect for decades. In the area in which I live, there are open spaces and derelict houses, some the result of the war and many others, next door to them, the result of a generation of neglect.
What is the position of a local authority in an area like that going to be? They must look at particular sites and say, "Well, we suppose that a bomb dropped on this house, and therefore we can clean it up under this Bill. Next door, we have a site in exactly the same condition which is simply the result of neglect, and, in this case, we must fall back on the Town and Country Planning Act. All we can do under that Act

is conditional on our being able to argue that the area is seriously injured by the condition of this site, and then we can force the owner of the site to do something to clear it up, but we cannot lease it and do the work ourselves under the short-term procedure of this Bill." I am afraid that these two procedures—the one dealing with an area of neglect arising from the war, in which case the authority is given these powers, and the other an exactly similar site side by side, whose condition is not due to war damage, which has to rely on the procedure of the Town and Country Planning Act—will lead to a good deal of anomaly and confusion.
The main point which I want to make, however, concerns the possibility of action being taken under this Bill, and under the inferior powers given by other Acts of Parliament, to get something done to clean up the derelict areas of this country over the next 12 or 18 months. A number of speakers in this Debate have talked about the difficulties, the problem of labour shortage and about all the economic difficulties with which the country is faced, and there is no doubt that one of the main difficulties of local authorities which are given powers under this Bill will be this problem of labour shortage.
In a question to the Lord President the other day, I put forward a suggestion that, in connection with the Festival of Britain, a campaign might be inaugurated in consultation with local authorities to enlist the services of voluntary organisations and individuals in beautifying urban areas by the removal of industrial blight, the restoration of derelict land and the planting of trees and shrubs, and the Lord President said that he hoped that many matters of this kind, such as the removal of eyesores, would be carried out as labours of love by volunteers. I believe there is considerable scope under this Bill and even wider than this Bill if we can capture the imagination of our local authorities and people, and in particular our young people, for real achievement which will not be done if we regard it as something which has to be left to a large programme of capital investment and all the rest of it.
I have been exploring possibilities in my own constituency, as other hon. Members have no doubt done, and I am


attending a conference with my own local authority this week to see what can be achieved. I know that I need scarcely appeal to the Minister of Health, with his Celtic imagination, and the Parliamentary Secretary, who has a great love for amenity and great experience of young people's organisations and voluntary organisations, to throw the weight of their Ministry between now and the Festival of Britain behind a campaign to get local authorities all over the country really examining what can be done to utilise the enthusiasm of the voluntary organisations, and the youth organisations in particular in this way.
The Ministry of Health and the Festival of Britain authorities could give a lead to them and to the local authorities to get them to draw up lists of projects which are suitable for execution largely by voluntary labour with a minimum of technical supervision and advice from the local authority. If the local Press, for example, would organise competitions for suggestions from organisations as to what they were prepared to do, or from individuals on what can be done, some very illuminating suggestions might come forward which might not occur to the official mind.
Having got a list of projects, the local authorities concerned could then call conferences with all the voluntary organisations in the area, and very considerable support might be obtained. This can be done at this particular stage of our history because of the existence in most parts of the country of full employment. My hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) was quite right in saying that there might be some difficulty in getting voluntary labour in certain areas of the country where there are still pockets of unemployment. In the Midlands and many other parts of the country, where nearly every able-bodied person has got a job and another is waiting for him, there is no difficulty of that kind at this time. The hesitation which some trade union leaders might feel if full employment was not continued at the present level, does not therefore arise.
When one thinks of the Black Country, one thinks of clearing up the dumps and the slag heaps, and if bombs happen to have been dropped we may be able to deal with some of them under this Bill.

A great deal was done on these lines before the war; at Oakengates in Shropshire, for example, the International Student Service cleared a 60,000-ton pit heap by voluntary labour. There is much that can be done to clear up derelict land, to convert disused ponds in derelict pits into boating lakes, and in the planting of trees, shrubs and flowers and converting these derelict areas into places of amenity and recreation for the local population. The youth organisations could be used to establish playing fields, of which many areas are desperately short, and this can be done with a certain provision of material and supervision by the local authorities, but mainly by voluntary labour.
Three years ago, during a short visit to Denmark, I saw in Copenhagen something of what can be done by a municipality with voluntary help in a campaign for cleaning up its own city. Copenhagen and many other of the northern cities are examples of what can be done in tidiness, neatness and cleanliness by stimulating both municipal and voluntary effort in the right direction, and it is something which might very well be tried on a larger scale in this country. Coming nearer to the provisions of the Bill on the subject of war damage, we should look at what has been done since the end of the war, to some extent by voluntary labour, in places like Warsaw and the blitzed cities of Eastern Europe.
I should like to quote from the "Wolverhampton Chronicle" on this issue. It said this in a recent leader:
If once we could recapture the lost spirit of communal service, we should be a long way on the road to national prosperity. Once the ordinary man discovers the joy of putting more into national and local life than he takes out of it he will not be satisfied with the mediocre, either in his leisure or working hours.
We discovered during the war that there were great resources of public service, enthusiasm and initiative which could be won from our young people and from our older people in warden and A.R.P. services, and in all kinds of public service, and that the people felt a sense of satisfaction in performing those tasks. It is our duty now, at the end of the war, to recapture that spirit for the tasks of peace which are no less challenging and no less important to our national recovery. The Festival of Britain gives us a chance


to focus this spirit once again in our national life. I appeal to the Minister not merely to rely on the narrow legalistic phrases of this Bill, but to use the Measure as one more weapon in a campaign which can lead to a cleaner and brighter Britain, won by the public service and the public spirit of our people.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Shurmer: Much has been said in this Debate to boost this Bill, and although I do not wish to keep the House at this late hour, I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without saying a few words on the subject. I happen to live in, and to represent, a constituency which was very badly blitzed during the war. It is true that we did not have a long blitz, but it was very sharp and did a lot of damage. I have continually appealed to my local authority to do something to clear up the blitzed sites. Most of the hon. Members representing London boroughs who have taken part in this Debate have spoken as though the bombed buildings are still on the blitzed sites in those boroughs. I must congratulate Birmingham on the way it has cleared up its bombed buildings. Nevertheless, those sites are now being used by people for the dumping of bricks, old perambulators and car parts, and on which to park lorries at night. Strange to say, those sites are right in the heart of a very poor district.
I know that the local authority would welcome the power to deal with these bombed sites. I have already been able to get local agents to agree to two large sites in my Division being used by young boys as cycling tracks. They have temporary lighting at night, and visiting teams are coming along. I must say that some of the agents have been very co-operative in allowing this, but nevertheless there is no obligation on them to allow this sport, which has the effect of keeping the boys off the streets with their racing cycles.
I have also been in touch with my city surveyor on the subject of getting youth clubs to clear away the rubble on these bombed sites, provided the local authorities are prepared to use their transport for taking it away. The local authorities say that they have no power whatever to allow people to go on these sites. I agree

with the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes) that here is an opportunity for the Minister to appeal to the youth of the country to do something voluntarily. We in Birmingham are very fortunate because we have practically no unemployment at the present time. The position today is far different from what it was four years after the First World War, when we had 60,000 unemployed. Nevertheless, I believe that we could get plenty of voluntary labour for the clearing of the sites. There is no need to use much material by way of fencing, and it would take only a very small amount of money to lay out gardens on these sites.
Some months ago I had a fight with my council about the cleanliness of the streets. No doubt many will remember a photograph in the Press showing me in the act of sweeping the streets. I still do it in order to encourage the people who live there to follow my example. After all, during the war we were prepared to do all sorts of jobs, so why should we not now be prepared to do something to beautify our cities in peacetime? I hope that the Minister will take note of what the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton has said, and try and get in touch with those local bodies who are prepared to undertake the job of beautifying our cities.

Mr. Mellish: Is not my hon. Friend going to say something about the money necessary for carrying out this work?

Mr. Shurmer: Yes, I agree. Birmingham is very fortunate in receiving a rate equalisation grant, whereas the London boroughs do not. I should be prepared to support the London boroughs in their application for an equal share with regard to this particular aspect. I hope that the Minister will take steps to see that this work is done and that local authorities are encouraged to do the job.

7.8 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: While I am not so enthusiastic about this Bill as some of my hon. Friends who have immediately preceded me, I nevertheless welcome it. It is quite clear that for some considerable time past this problem has exercised the minds of local authorities, particularly the Metropolitan boroughs I recall that on 3rd June last year, I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of


Health whether he would take steps to extend the powers of local authorities to enable them to deal with the inconvenience arising from the misuse of bombed sites as rubbish dumps. At that time, he seemed to be under the impression that the Public Health Acts already gave local authorities the necessary powers to deal with such nuisances; but, as was made clear by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary when he intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling), the legal position up to the time of the introduction of this Bill has been most unsatisfactory.
In the Metropolitan borough of Lambeth, the Brixton Division of which I have the honour to represent, I have for some years past received numerous complaints from constituents relating to the misuse of bombed sites, and to the inconvenience caused, not only as the result of dumping rubbish on these sites, but also to the nuisance arising out of the misuse by evilly disposed persons of derelict and bomb-damaged houses which have not yet been removed, but which have not been made inaccessible to the casual passer-by.
In the Borough of Lambeth the removal of debris from the sites was a service which the Metropolitan borough council did perform, particularly after the war, but upon being informed by the Ministry of Health that such expenditure was not reimbursable, the practice had to be discontinued, to the profound and justifiable dissatisfaction of many people living in the borough. It was the case that
although these rubbish dumps were a general nuisance and undoubtedly were injurious to amenities, nevertheless they were not a nuisance within
the strict legal significance of the Public Health
Acts. I am very glad that the Minister has changed his mind on the subject and does not now maintain the position he then adopted, that the Public Health Acts gave the local authorities sufficient powers for them to deal with this problem.
So far as the London boroughs are concerned, the situation from the financial point of view under this Bill is not satisfactory, and I doubt whether even in the Metropolitan Borough of Lambeth, within the confines of which the South Bank exhibition will take place, it will be found possible to devote a very large sum of money towards carrying out the facilities

which will be available under this Bill. It may well be that to a considerable extent Metropolitan boroughs will have to limit themselves to making use of the powers which will be available under Clause 9, which enables the local authority to do work on the site without taking possession.
These sites of which complaint has been made for some years past are small sites and they do not lend themselves to rehousing schemes on a large scale. All the large available sites have either been acquired or are already earmarked for rehousing purposes. It is these small sites, which do not lend themselves to development on a large scale, which are the cause of the trouble. Most of the people who have written to me will, I know, be perfectly content if the local authority exercises the power to rail off these sites and make them inaccessible to the public, or at least make them accessible only to allotment holders or other suitable occupiers who may be prepared to make proper use of the sites.
If proper use cannot be made of the sites, then local residents will be quite content if they are railed off so that they can no longer be used as rubbish dumps, so that the derelict premises can no longer be used as dangerous playgrounds for children—and in some cases a positive death trap to them—if derelict business or residential premises are not used for undesirable purposes, and if they are simply made secure, under the powers which are available in Clause 9 of this Bill. Even if only to that extent, I think a very useful purpose will be served. I know that, apart from the purely financial aspect, the Metropolitan Borough of Lambeth and other Metropolitan boroughs will welcome the somewhat belated granting to them of powers which they have been seeking for some considerable time.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am very pleased to have the opportunity, even at this late hour, of taking part in this Debate, because each of the previous speakers has mentioned his own constituency and pointed out his own constituency difficulties. Naturally, I feel that the area which I represent, West Ham, an area which suffered from the first blitz and unfortunately was in the blitz right to the


very end, will be very interested in this Bill. All of us, in whatever quarter of the House we may sit, can support the principle of this Bill, but how can a council such as West Ham or many other London boroughs in a similar position, carry out these activities when they find they have not the money to carry them out, much as they may wish to implement this Bill?
I know it has been said that it is not likely to involve much so far as an increase in the rates is concerned. I mention West Ham specifically, although it is true of almost all of the London bombed boroughs, because when we find an area such as this, where acres have been devastated, where the council have lost the rates which they would normally receive from the houses and the factories which are no longer there, then we face a difficult problem. They have lost thousands of pounds in rates, yet they have to keep up the same local amenities; they still have to provide all the usual amenities for the same area.
We find that in this Bill they are, rightly, given powers to undertake the clearing of these bombed sites so as to make them what we all want them to be—open spaces where children can play, particularly in areas like West Ham, where open spaces are needed—and yet, because of the lack of money, the councils will not be able to get on with the job. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish) mentioned this point, and I would support him on it, because Rotherhithe also suffered greatly. I think it is very unfair to say to a local council, "Here is a Bill which gives you the opportunity of clearing these sites, but if there is any additional cost it will not be much and you can find it out of your local rates." I believe that in West Ham the rates are already about 25s. in the £.
West Ham and similar boroughs suffered in the blitz and have suffered because, as they are situated in an industrial area, they lack open spaces. They have been suffering since the blitz because they have not been able to draw in the rates which would normally have been available to them. They are in debt because of the war. Now they are told, "You can have the power and authority of this Bill to get on with the job of clearing these sites, but if there is

any cost, which should only be small, we are afraid we cannot help you." I ask the Minister of Health to reconsider the question of meeting 100 per cent. of the cost, whatever it may be, into which the council may enter. I ask him to meet that cost from the Exchequer, so that the council can get on with the job without worrying about where the money will come from.

7.19 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I think the House generally will be in agreement with me when I say that the Debate has been both interesting and informative and that there has been very little display of party feeling during the discussion. Indeed, in his opening speech the Minister was in a very amiable mood, and in that mood I found him an attractive personality, if I may be permitted to say so. He told us that the Bill was a short Measure and he also said that it was easy to understand, but then he seemed to me somewhat to modify his views because he went on to talk of the complications which arise in connection with values and cost of works payments. He said that they were not very easy to understand.
Then we had a speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) and at the conclusion of his speech I decided that the Bill was much more complicated than even I had anticipated. I fully agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, however, when he spoke of the number of war damaged sites which are seemingly derelict, which in many cases are miniature refuse dumps, if not something worse, and which are anything but pleasant from any point of view.
Apart from the wider aspect, I think all of us feel very much distressed that month after month and year after year what were once magnificent industrial, business, shopping or housing sites remain, except for a little amount of tidying up which was done at the time, more or less as they were immediately after they were bombed. I must say that I have wondered from time to time why, for example, large areas of the City and other parts of London
which were destroyed in the blitz, have not been rebuilt. After all, some four and a half


years have passed since the end of the war.
There may be some reason why rebuilding has not been done. It may be that the owners have not yet decided the type of re-development they would like to go in for. It may be that there is a shortage of money. It may be that the planning authorities have been unable to decide a plan, and therefore have had to withhold planning permission. It may be due, as someone suggested, to delay on the part of the War Damage Commission. And, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) said, certain of these cases attract a development charge, the amount of which, when the Land Board has decided it, has been found to be too high—so high, indeed, as to make rebuilding a very doubtful proposition from the economic angle. Then again, perhaps principally to facilitate the right hon. Gentleman's housing programme or some other building project, the Government have felt it necessary to give priority to those ventures instead of priority to the replacement of houses and other buildings on war damaged sites.
But, whatever the cause—and here my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Colonel Dower) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) have pointed out the great difficulties which exist in certain circumstances—it is surely a grave reflection on somebody that so little progress has been made in bringing war damaged sites into some kind of productive use again. If for some good reason, either the economic crisis or the need to restrict capital expenditure, it has been impossible to bring those sites into productive use now, then so far as this Bill results in putting them to some use and in making them less of an eyesore, it is indeed, in my opinion, to be welcomed.
If the provisions of the Bill are to produce the greatest possible benefit, it would seem to me that they should apply equally to all war damaged sites. I can think, for example, of quite a number of church sites which would benefit greatly, and present a much more pleasing picture to the eye, if they were subjected to tidying up. That also applies to land owned by statutory undertakers. It may be that such lands are not really excluded, and

that, while compulsory acquisition is in fact inapplicable, a local authority can still, in the terms of Clause 9, enter on to all sites for the purpose of making them presentable. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, when he replies, will be good enough to clear up that point.
I must say that at no time do I like compulsion or the use of compulsory powers, for it always seems to me that their use must tend to create an unhappy and unfriendly atmosphere. Therefore, I reinforce the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and express the hope that such powers will not be used under the Bill until an effort at agreement has been made and it is quite obvious that agreement cannot be reached. I should like to say in that connection that the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he would not grant compulsion until the intentions of the owner had been ascertained did a good deal to reassure me on that particular point. The hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) pointed out that this Bill was purely permissive so far as the local authorities were concerned, and that there was no element of compulsion in it. That is perfectly true. However, I hope that the position in Liverpool is not so black as she would have us believe. I trust that no local authority will hold back. I hope that all local authorities will go ahead in putting their war damaged sites to rights.
I feel a certain amount of sympathy with the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for North Paddington (Captain Field), the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton), my hon. Friend the Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare), and other hon. Gentlemen in regard to the cost of the work which the local authorities are being asked to undertake. It is true that this cost will be incurred as a direct result of enemy action, and it seems to me that they have made a case which is worthy of examination for the money to be given from the Exchequer. If that happened, it would go far to ensure the fulfilment of the hope that I have expressed.
It might, in addition, be well that the powers
which the Bill entrusts to the local authorities should be given the widest


possible publicity, so that if there happens to be any backward authority, then it will be brought into line by the weight of public opinion. I commend that suggestion to the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool. I also hope that no local authority will confine its activities merely to sites which are in use for its own purposes. I further hope there will be no outbreak of unsightly temporary buildings. I think it should be remembered all the time that the purpose of this Bill is to make existing scars less unsightly than they are at present, and not to enable buildings to be substituted for them which would be detrimental to amenities.
By Clause 7 the local authorities can in certain circumstances be directed by the Minister to surrender sites which they have occupied—that is, where the present owners with an interest in the sites wish to develop them and have obtained planning permission. Apart altogether from what my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford said, where such cases arise I trust that planning permission will never be withheld merely because the local authority happens to be using such a site for some statutory purpose. That was a point which was also stressed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith and Cockermouth.
I observe that in this, as in other matters which have been introduced by the present Government, the powers of the Minister are very wide—

Mr. Ellis Smith: So they should be.

Commander Galbraith: —and I submit that they should be subject to a greater Parliamentary control. It may be, as some of my hon. Friends have said, that there should be a right of appeal given to owners of these sites. In that and in other respects this Bill will call for close examination during the Committee stage. Meantime, I trust that the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to the Debate will be able to deal with many of the points that have been made, not only by my hon. Friends but by hon. Gentlemen behind him, and that his replies will enable us who sit on these benches to accord an unopposed Second Reading to this Bill without any mental reservations of any kind whatsoever.

7.29 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): This modest Bill—for it is a modest Bill—has, I think, received a real welcome from all sides of the House, as, indeed, one would have anticipated. Indeed, the position is that I find myself pressed by my hon. Friends on this side of the House to extend these powers rather than to limit them. I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes) and others who have pointed out the difficulty of areas which have been blitzed and ravaged, but not by bombs, and the urgent need for dealing with that problem as well as with this one. It is clear that under this Bill we are dealing, and must deal, with a much more limited problem; and we are trying to deal with it in a manner which will not in any way interfere with the proper long-term development of the sites, which is, of course, the only real solution.
I would remind my hon. Friends who raised problems about sites in the country other than bombed damaged sites, that they seem to be making a plea for a long-term use of those sites which cannot be dealt with under the provisions of a temporary character which are contained in this Measure. I assure my hon. Friends that if I do not seize on the suggestions which they have made to me about the desirability of extending the scope of the Bill to embrace these wider projects, it is not because I lack sympathy, because I live in the middle of this problem on the North-East Coast of England and I recognise very sincerely how urgent it is. But it must be dealt with in other ways.
I would point out that this Bill is merely intended—I say "merely," but it is important—for the tidying-up of the bombed sites in the interim period before we get on with the long-term measures of development which we all want to see take place, but which must inevitably in present conditions be delayed, regrettable as that is. In view of the fact that this is in many ways an interim Measure to fill the gap before long-term development can take place, it seems to me wrong that we should raise complicated administrative issues at this stage. Surely it is desirable in a Measure of this kind to secure as simple an administrative


process as we can and not tie ourselves to much more cumbrous measures which may or may not be desirable for Bills which deal with long-term development projects, which are a very different matter. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) was inclined to suggest the inclusion in this very limited-purpose Bill of all kinds of safeguards of private interests which would be more suitable to a long-term Measure.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the number of cases in which an owner would object would probably be only a small minority as opposed to cases of compulsory acquisition where it is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, quite normal; and does he not think it proper in this small number of cases where some special point may well arise which cannot always be foreseen that this procedure should be adopted in the interests of the liberty of the subject?

Mr. Blenkinsop: When the hon. Gentleman speaks of the liberty of the subject, surely that is well and fully provided for in this Bill. All we ask is for power to get in and tidy up sites without in any way altering the problems of ownership—tidying up sites which are a nuisance and, as hon. Members have said, a disgrace to this country. We shall do that work as quickly as possible. It would be quite intolerable, having that in mind, to try to impose a long complicated procedure, which has its merits possibly in a Measure which is dealing with the ownership of land and the problem of acquisition, because here we are not dealing with the problem of acquisition but merely with the question of very temporary possession.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman have referred to the length of this procedure. They must know better than anyone else that the actual reason why such procedure needs to be lengthy is the delay which may take place in their own Department in considering the report of the inquiry.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to accept that. As everyone knows, many local authorities will be deterred from taking this action in the short-term period available for it if they have to go through the procedure

laid down under other Acts where problems of acquisition actually arise.
Many of my hon. Friends have raised the question of finance and have suggested that unless some special grant is made available many authorities will not find it possible to undertake work of this kind. I say to my hon. Friends that whenever we bring forward a Measure to extend the powers of local authorities, that does not mean that we automatically provide special Exchequer grants for that purpose. We have to face the fact that at the present time we cannot envisage under this Measure any large-scale expensive project coming forward. This is not intended to meet that type of expenditure. If it were proposed to involve the use of a large amount of labour and material in schemes of this kind, clearly it would not be practicable to do so at the present time, and, therefore we are thinking of more modest schemes which nevertheless will be, I am sure, of great value, and which local authorities have not been able to carry out because their powers were so doubtful in the past.
So far as a contribution is made through equalisation procedure to that expenditure, an Exchequer grant is in fact being made available. I recognise that that does not apply to all areas, but we also have to face the fact that there is no likelihood of our being able to afford Exchequer grants for this purpose.

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman spoke about these schemes being very modest from the point of view of the work to be done; but I think he will understand that many local authorities cannot face a small expenditure such as £3,000 for fences at the present time when rates are 19s. 4d. in the pound. That would be over a 1d. rate in Bermondsey. Cannot he do something to help?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I think that my hon. Friend is suggesting that the whole of this expenditure would fall upon one year, whereas presumably the actual loan charge cost of such expenditure would be very much more modest. That is without taking into account any money that may come in from the War Damage Commission, and the value of the voluntary side of the work, which I believe can be very great. The hon. Member for West Wolverhampton and other hon. Members have suggested the importance of recruiting


voluntary work in this field. I believe that this can be of enormous advantage not only from the point of view of general national pride in the work done, but can also be a great contribution to ensure that the actual expense falling on the Exchequer or local authority shall be very small.

Colonel Dower: Can the hon. Gentleman say where the War Damage Commission come in under this Bill?

Mr. Blenkinsop: As my right hon. Friend explained this afternoon, work that is done by the local authority which would in any case have to be done by the owner before he could commence rebuilding, would be compensated for by the War Damage Commission. In cases where demolition work has to be done and some clearance of rubble made it might well amount to a considerable sum. I would point out to my hon. Friends who press for an Exchequer contribution that in other types of work in the past it has often proved possible for voluntary work to make a very real contribution indeed, not merely in the planting of a few seeds but in recruiting the people of a district to try to deal with their own immediate problems.

Captain Field: I tried to explain that the intial laying out of these sites could not be done by voluntary labour. The Metropolitan boroughs, in particular, cannot afford the initial charge. I also tried to make clear that the initial work—the fencing and the levelling of the ground—meant for Paddington a 6d. rate, and for Hammersmith an expenditure of from £10,000 to £14,000.

Mr. Hare: Before the Parliamentary Secretary resumes, I would point out that merely making the site safe by fencing, and so on, may amount to between £2,000 and £7,000 an acre.

Captain Field: That is a minimum?

Mr. Hare: Yes.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I admit that fencing is not work that we could normally expect voluntary labour to carry out, but there is a great deal of other preliminary work from which we need not necessarily exclude voluntary labour. Indeed, it is my experience, and that of other hon. Members, that in the past voluntary

workers have very often done that sort of work in order to clear away the offensive relics of past industrial development in the industrial areas. However, as I say, we cannot regard this as a charge which should properly fall all in one particular year, and it seems reasonable that we should consider what would be the loan charge, which would be very much less than the figures suggested by my hon. Friends.

Mrs. Middleton: My hon. Friend says that this charge would not fall within one year. Surely if this work is to be done and the sites cleared in time for the Festival of Britain, it would have to fall within two years.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I agree that we want this work carried out straight away, as soon as it is practicable to do it. I am merely making clear that I do not believe it will be possible to offer Exchequer aid at this time for these schemes; that if the schemes prove to be so expensive in labour and material as hon. Members seemed to suggest, it would be impracticable at this time to carry them out; and that we must limit ourselves to the most modest schemes.

Mr. A. Lewis: Does not my hon. Friend realise—

Mr. Blenkinsop: I really cannot give way again.
It has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) that we need compulsory powers. As has been said, it would be impossible to impose compulsory powers without an Exchequer grant; but apart from that, this does not appear to me to be a matter in which compulsory powers should be used by statute. I think that this is a matter on which local democracy should make its voice heard. After all, we have our local bodies, democratically elected, and it is naturally their views that we would expect to hear on a question of this kind; and we would expect them to press their own authorities to ensure the carrying out of this type of work, which is so much for their own improvement and betterment. The question of the absentee owner was raised, and the difficulty of presenting notice to him. That is provided for in the Bill. In fact, notice on the site is provided for, as on other occasions.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) suggested that neither the local authority, nor any person granted a lease under the local authority, should be given power to do any work which the owner himself was able to carry out. I am sure the Bill adequately covers the position of the owner in that case, because before the local authority can go in to do the work opportunity is given to the owner to object. One of the issues that arises is whether or not the owner will be able to carry out within a reasonable time any suitable work on the site himself, and it would be our intention to see that this Bill did not in any way interfere with the right of the owner to do this clearing up work, or indeed the longer term development work that we wish to see done.
Turning to the problem of hearing objectors, I think that if we tried to insist upon a full hearing of objections we should be drifting into the much more complicated procedure of measures more suitable for problems of acquisition, and here we are not dealing with such problems. Those powers are already in the hands of local authorities under other statutes. We are here dealing purely with the temporary use of land, not of acquisition.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Wolverhampton both today and by means of Questions in the House, has raised the wider problem of the help that voluntary labour can give in schemes of this kind. We firmly believe that this work affords an opportunity for people in the areas concerned to get together to see whether, with the powers provided by this Bill, they cannot help to clear up and beautify some of these bomb damaged sites which have been so much of an eyesore for so long. There is a great multitude of voluntary organisations of all kinds—youth clubs, tenants' associations, co-operative guilds, and many others—who I am sure would welcome the opportunity of doing such work. I know of many tenants' associations on housing estates who have built excellent halls for themselves, and have levelled land in order to make playing fields for the estates. I know of many youth clubs who have built their own premises. I want that type of initiative and effort encouraged and taking place in all our big cities.
It is important to get local authorities to encourage all the voluntary bodies in their areas to come together and put forward their proposals for tackling the problems in their own districts. I am confident that if we get, as I am sure we can, the co-operation of this variety of voluntary organisations, both youth and other organisations, in trying to look after their own districts, we can ensure that the objects of this Bill are carried out and that the areas are cleaned up and beautified, and also stimulate what I consider to be of equal importance, and that is a new civic pride in the areas themselves. Members opposite on recent occasions have seemed to pour a good deal of cold water upon the incentive public interest has as against private interest. This is a very good opportunity for us all to show that the incentive of public interest and public desire can co-operate together to relieve our immediate problems, and that it is on the increase and not on the decrease.

Colonel Dower: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, before he concludes, will explain why the provisions of that excellent Act, the Landlord and Tenant Act, are excluded from this Bill.

Mr. Blenkinsop: This is really to protect the position for the local authorities where the tenant under a local authority carries out certain work on a site, so that the local authority shall not be compelled to reimburse the tenant for the work that has been done. It must be remembered that the local authority is only a temporary tenant for five years, or at the most for 10 years. It is intended that any improvements of a temporary character should not fall upon the local authority, where the sub-tenant has been doing the work, in the same way as when a site is returned to the owner the local authority will not be able to charge the owner for work done which would in no way obstruct the owner in his future long-term development.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Surely the Landlord and Tenant Act applies to business premises?

Mr. Blenkinsop: It is not contemplated that there is likely to be any major structural development on these sites. Obviously, as they are in the hands of the local authorities for only five or 10 years, it would be absurd to do so. I


am anxious to make an appeal to all local authorities to do what they can to encourage voluntary bodies in their areas to help in this scheme, because I am convinced that with their support and the support of the local people valuable work can be done under this Bill without any added expense to the Exchequer, and with a very limited expense to the local authorities concerned.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WAR DAMAGED SITES [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[King's Recommendation signified.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable local authorities to take possession of or do work on certain war damaged land and to authorise the conversion of cost of works payments in certain cases, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of such moneys under Part I or Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948;
(b) any increase in the compensation payable by the Crown under any Act which is attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session regulating the compensation payable in respect of a compulsory acquisition of land, including any increase which is attributable as aforesaid in the sums payable into the Road Fund out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of expenses of the Minister of Transport;

and the charging on and issuing out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase in the sums required for payments under the War Damage Act, 1943, attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session enabling the War Damage Commission to make such payments as are authorised by section thirteen of the said Act of 1943."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS ORDER

Resolved:
That the Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 4) Order, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th September, be approved.—[Mr. Younger.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL DEFENCE (DRAFT REGULATIONS)

7.55 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): I beg to move,
That the Draft Civil Defence (Fire Services) Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th July, be approved.
This is the first of the rather more specialised draft regulations to which I referred when the House was discussing the general regulations in the summer. These and the succeeding regulations are part of a series. Members will recall that there were also under discussion last week rather similar specialised orders by other designated Ministers. The Fire Services Regulations are the exact counterpart to the Scottish regulations that were approved last week except for the usual alterations in terminology to suit the systems of the two countries and slight drafting rearrangements.
The purpose is to confer on local authorities responsibility for the organisation of their fire services for Civil Defence Services, and hon. Members will see set out very briefly the details of those purposes. They relate principally to the enrolment of auxiliaries, the training of those auxiliaries in general firemanship and subsequently training in the specialised work of Civil Defence. These have been fully discussed with the authorities concerned, and I think there is general agreement about them.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move,
That the Draft Civil Defence (Public Protection) Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th July, be approved.
I think it may be for the convenience of the House if I also relate my few remarks to the next set of regulations, because they deal with precisely the same subject and only have to be put forward separately because different circumstances affect the London area owing to the existence of Metropolitan boroughs and the London County Council. There are differences in form between these regulations and the corresponding ones which were approved by the House in relation to Scotland last week, but they are differences in form only.
The functions which it is proposed to confer upon local authorities by these regulations have been selected partly because they are functions which have already been discussed and upon which a measure of agreement has been reached with the local authority associations, and partly because they are functions for which it would be appropriate that the Civil Defence Corps should be used. We have not so far included in the draft regulations functions which would not involve the use of the Civil Defence Corps. As far as the first set of these regulations is concerned, the functions will be found in the Second Schedule. As they are there briefly set out, I do not think I need recapitulate them.
Exactly the same functions are set out in the London regulations, but there they are set out in the body of the regulations instead of the Schedule because it has been necessary to make clear which of the functions fall to the London County Council and which to other authorities. The criterion adopted has been that the functions have been allotted to the authority which performs analogous functions in peace time. There has been no dispute with any of the authorities concerned about these functions, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the representatives of local authorities for their co-operation in obtaining agreement on this matter.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: These regulations, and the regulations dealing with the Fire Service, which we have already passed, deal only with the conferring of new functions upon local authorities. I think there will be general agreement in all quarters of the House that it is right to confer these functions on local authorities, and in that way to ensure that there is sound machinery for the creation of Civil Defence services. It is not our intention, on this occasion, to debate the questions of how far and to what extent these functions will become immediately operative. These regulations do not, I understand, become effective for a further period of about 14 days, and no doubt the Home Secretary and his advisers will later be able to tell us to what extent these functions are operative and what additional charges, if any, they will involve upon the Exchequer and the local authorities concerned. All we wish

to say, at this stage, is that we approve the passage of these regulations.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I do not think these regulations should be passed without a Government spokesman answering what I believe to be some relevant questions. The regulations say that it shall be the function of the Common Council of the City of London and of every Metropolitan borough council
to take measures for the protection of human beings against the toxic effects of atomic, biological or chemical warfare, other than measures for dealing with casualties and disease.
Is not the House entitled to have a full explanation of these words, rather than the perfunctory statement that the regulations follow those which were approved in respect of Scotland? It is said that because certain regulations were approved for Scotland they should be automatically approved for England—rather a reversal of the usual procedure. Local authorities will be interested to know what they will be called upon to do, what steps they must take to protect human beings against the toxic effects of atomic, biological or chemical warfare.
What precisely is meant by the words "toxic effects of atomic, biological or chemical warfare"? Are these just incidental things which can be brushed aside, as though they were a small item in a sanitary inspector's monthly report? I think this is the first time in which the words "atomic warfare" have been used in regulations. Would the Minister say how much money will be spent on helping local authorities to prepare against the possible effects of atomic warfare? We know that very large sums of money are being spent on our preparations for dropping atom bombs on other cities. It amounts to millions of pounds. Can we have an estimate of how much will be spent on defending the citizens of this country if atomic warfare should come? I am sure that the treasurer of the London County Council would be eager to have this information. Do we intend to increase these sums, or are we out for economy?
I want to ask whether "biological" includes "bacteriological"? Recently I read a report of a conference at Geneva at which the President of the World Health Organisation said that atomic warfare


fare had already been superseded, that the effects of bacteriological warfare were likely to make atomic warfare obsolete. This was not the statement of an irresponsible person. What effect will biological and bacteriological warfare have on the civil population of London? Is there any truth in the statements that in the event of bacteriological warfare hundreds of thousands of casualties will result? If we are to make preparations for this kind of warfare, surely we are entitled to know whether we intend to spend money on it; if we do not, then what is the use of talking about these regulations?
Could we be told what chemical warfare means, what sort of measures local authorities will be called upon to take in the event of such warfare? I believe that the Government have not the slightest idea of what they mean to do in the event of atomic, biological or chemical warfare, that they are merely "passing the buck," to the local authorities. That is not good enough. When we are spending £760 million on some kind of defence, we are entitled to know how much money we shall spend on defence against this form of attack.
I suspect that some of the scientists who are advising the Home Secretary on the defensive measures to be taken against this kind of warfare, are the same kind of scientists who are preparing devilish weapons for us to use against other nations in the event of war. We should have a fuller explanation than we have had so far of what all this means; let us have an indication of what local authorities will be called upon to do.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: I should not like it to go out that the interests of the citizens of London have been dealt with in this House only by an hon. Member for a Scottish Division. I am as deeply concerned as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) about the question which he has raised. I am able to speak with some experience about Civil Defence in London, because I knew what were the arrangements made during the last war. I can recall the tremendous discussions on Civil Defence that took place on much more minor matters than those mentioned in the documents now before us. I can

remember the discussions on deep shelters and so on. At least, the House got to know from the Government what their plans were.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we have very little information from the Government as to what steps it is proposed to take in the event of another war. I live in the borough of Lambeth, which has been mentioned in connection with these regulations. During the last war there was very little in the way of deep shelters or any other defence measures to provide some protection for the population. The best I ever found was to stand behind a wooden door under a concrete staircase throughout the night, because there was no other place to go. Such defence centres as existed, were already crowded with people. Great bodies of people in London can regard the fact that they have come through the war safely as an act of God, rather than an act of Government in providing the necessary defences.
What we know of atomic warfare, what we have been told about the attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in the last war and the dreadful consequences that overtook the civilian population, lead us to believe that there ought to be a clear understanding of the situation, and a much clearer statement about what is intended than anything we have got up to the present moment. In London we seem to move forward in a sort of flux, and if ever such a calamity as another war befalls us, we must not be in the serious situation of having no adequate defences. It is pure humbug on the part of the House or the Government to talk now about adequate defences against the dreadful consequences of warfare. Something should be done.
I re-echo the protest that has been made by my hon. Friend, with a full memory of the ineffectiveness of Civil Defence which marked even the best of the arrangements which we were able to make during the last war. What will happen in the next war will make what happened in the last war seem merely a flea-bite, and I make my protest as my hon. Friend has done, in the hope that it will lead to something being done.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: We all hope that there will not be another war, but


we should be failing in our duty if we did not take such steps as we can to protect the civil population from war's effects. I did not rise to pursue that, however; I want to make one point about these regulations, particularly with reference to the first Schedule. I do not object to the boroughs included there, but I must express my sorrow that the borough which I have the honour to represent is not included. I have had some correspondence with the Home Secretary on this matter, and he sent me what I thought was an encouraging reply.
I should like to have an assurance that the list is not closed, and that it will be possible for other non-county boroughs which are not included in the Schedule at present, to be allowed to operate their own Civil Defence arrangements. I make this request with the greater confidence, because I remember the Home Secretary during the Coalition Government when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education. I can recall how helpful he was when Cheltenham made an application that it should become an excepted district, and he expressed confidence in the ability and efficiency of the local education authority in Cheltenham. I hope he is prepared to extend that to the field of Civil Defence.
I also believe that if he agrees to include Cheltenham—I make this appeal at the request of the local authority—he will be rendering a great service to Civil Defence, because we are an efficient authority. I do not think he is going to find it easy to get the volunteers that are required, but he will have much more success if the appeal is made locally. People are much more likely to respond to an appeal made by a local mayor than to the chairman to the county council, who is somewhat distant and has not the same appeal to the ordinary citizen. I should like to have the assurance that the list is not closed, and that Cheltenham may be included amongst the non-county boroughs which will be given powers under these regulations.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Younger: If I have the leave of the House, I will deal with the remarks

that have been made. With regard to the appeal made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) I can assure him that approval to these regulations with only the names of county boroughs in the first Schedule will not prejudice consideration of other cases which at the moment is going on. It would be wrong if I were to attempt to say anything about the individual case in which the hon. Member is interested, but I can assure him that the approval of the regulations would not prejudice consideration of that case.

Mr. Lipson: The decision will not be long delayed?

Mr. Younger: I cannot really say how long it will be. In reply to my hon. Friends the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and the Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) I think it would be inappropriate on these regulations to follow them into all the possibilities of attack by various modern forms of weapons. The short point, I think, is the one which I made in my opening remarks, that we have tried to pick out in these regulations those functions for the carrying out of which it would be necessary for local authorities to use the Civil Defence Corps. We have tried to give enough precision to those functions to enable local authorities to begin recruiting and training. The matter does not go beyond that, and I would suggest to the House that on these regulations no question of the future cost of defending London or the whole country against modern forms of warfare can possibly arise. We are only taking the step to enable local authorities to set up the necessary organisation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Draft Civil Defence (Public Protection) Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th July, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Draft Civil Defence (Public Protection) (London) Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th July, be approved."—[Mr. Younger.]

Orders of the Day — COMMERCIAL PETROL (INGREDIENTS)

8.18 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to move:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 24th October, 1949, entitled the Motor Spirit (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations, 1949 (S.I., 1949, No. 1973), a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th October, be annulled.
These regulations purport to define the composition of commercial petrol commonly called red petrol, and the order comprising these regulations amends Order No. 1127 made last year, both of which were made under the Motor Spirit Regulations Act, 1948.
I should like to explain straightaway to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power that I am not moving to annul these regulations out of any special affection for the black market. We feel that it is important that these regulations should be carefully examined and that the House should be sure that they hold water better than those which were made before and which they amend. We also want to be sure that the Minister's intentions will be entirely constitutional, The Act of 1948, the parent Act, lays down in Section I the definition of the commercial petrol which is to be:
motor spirit which contains any of the prescribed ingredients"—
that is, prescribed by regulations made by the Minister. The Minister has so prescribed in the order of 1948 and in this order.
There is a further Section in the parent Act to which I must call attention and that is Section 11. It provides:
In any proceedings in respect of an offence under this Act, a certificate purporting to be signed by an authorised analyst and certifiing the ingredients of any such sample of motor spirit as may be specified in the certificate shall … be evidence of the facts therein stated.
Then under that Act as soon as it became operative, the Minister made the first set of regulations—Statutory Instrument 1127—which prescribed that the essential ingredient should be a substance called diphenylamine. In pursuance of that legislation the Minister's analysts proceeded to give certificates, and convictions were obtained, but I know that I cannot pursue that aspect of the matter any

further, and it is not in any way essential to my case.
That continued until on 19th October this year when I think the Minister got rather a shock, there was a case in the sheriff court in Edinburgh which really blew the existing regulations sky high. This case was the fount and origin of the regulations which I am now moving to annul. Here I wish to read from the report which appeared in the "Daily Telegraph" of 20th October this year:
Sheriff Garrett, K.C., at Edinburgh sheriff court yesterday, held that it was impossible for the Crown to obtain a conviction against persons suspected of having red petrol in the tanks of their private cars as the motor spirit regulations stand at present. … The sheriff said that regulation three of the statutory instrument provided that to make motor spirit commercial petrol for the purpose of the Motor Spirit Regulations a prescribed ingredient, diphenylamine, shall be added. The evidence given by two analysts was that by applying the prescribed tests the sample analysed gave a colour reaction indicative of diphenylamine. But they frankly admitted that they were unable to affirm positively that it was in fact present. The same reaction could be obtained from certain other substances of which diphenylamine was one. That group consisted of half a dozen related substances. The evidence was not of reaction to the particular substance but to the group.
That decision having been reached, it was quite obvious that the first order containing the first set of regulations could no longer be relied on.
Then this amending order was made—the order which I am now moving to annul—and it came into operation on 28th October. I want to invite the attention of the House to the precise terms of this order and its explanatory note. The original order which this amends merely defines commercial petrol as petrol containing diphenylamine. This order enlarges that definition in this manner. It says:
The prescribed ingredient … shall be diphenylamine (which expression shall be deemed to include any nuclear substituted diphenylamine).
Not being an organic chemist, I had to look at the explanatory note to find what explanation might be given of that sentence. One finds this:
These regulations amend the Motor Spirit Regulations, 1948, so as to make it clear that the expression 'diphenylamine,' specified in the regulations as the prescribed ingredient for the purposes of the Motor Spirit (Regulation) Act, 1948, comprises not only the parent chemical diphenylamine but also compounds of the same basic structure closely allied to it.


I would call attention particularly to one phrase in the text. The phrase is "shall be deemed." I cannot understand why the Minister does not say quite clearly that in future commercial petrol shall be petrol containing certain defined ingredients. Why say that in future the expression "diphenylamine" shall be deemed to include a number of other substances? This curious method of circumlocution makes one suspicious, and, when one comes to the explanatory note, I think even more so. Instead of merely saying that in future the essential substance for the test of commercial petrol shall be so and so, the Minister says that these regulations amend the previous regulations
so as to make it clear that the expression diphenylamine' comprises not only the parent chemical diphenylamine
but a number of other compounds. Why to make it clear? Why does he not simply say that in future the position will be so and so?

Mr. Mitchison: Could the hon. Baronet suggest another name for this chemical—perhaps a shorter one? I am sure he does not like it being called "diphenylamine," nor do I, Could he not make a constructive suggestion as to some shorter name which could be applied?

Sir J. Mellor: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for having taken so much trouble to advise me how to pronounce this word, but I would rather continue with my remarks.
I would invite the House to consider what is the position under Section 11 of the Act because, as I mentioned before, under Section 11 the authorised analyst certifies the ingredients. I think it is perfectly clear from the case I mentioned that it is quite impossible for any analyst by means of the existing test to certify the presence of diphenylamine or to certify the presence of any individual compound in that group. The analyst is required to certify ingredients, and that is the basis of any prosecution.
What he can do, presumably, if the Minister is right, is to say that the sample contains one or other, perhaps more than one, of the diphenylamine group, but he cannot say which one. In my contention, unless he can say which particular

substance he is certifying he is not certifying the ingredients. It is essential that the analyst should say that as a result of his analysis certain particular specified substances are present. I suggest that it would be quite insufficient for him to send to the court a certificate saying that in the sample which he analysed, there was, in his opinion, one or more substances comprised in that group but he could not say which.
That being the case, the Minister has, by these regulations, got himself in an even bigger mess than he did by the previous regulations and he would be well advised to consult some new advisers to see whether he can find some fresh reagent which will give a more exact test. There is no doubt—although this point seems to amuse the Parliamentary Secretary very much—that the Minister must have been very much misled by the advice which he originally obtained because he continued for some time under the previous regulations to obtain convictions upon evidence which has been proved entirely unreliable. He must recognise that the technical advice he obtained was misleading. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us what advice he obtained and whether he is satisfied that the new provisions will work more satisfactorily than the previous ones.
There is another question I want to raise. I asked the Minister last week what he proposed to do about proceedings instituted under the previous regulations and whether he would abandon those proceedings, in view of the fact that the evidence—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to go into what has happened in the past.

Sir J. Mellor: I think you will recognise, Sir, that I am in Order when I point out that I am putting these points to the Minister because he said that he did not propose to abandon any proceedings commenced before this order became operative. If he is not going to abandon those proceedings, and having regard to the fact that under the previous order such proceedings would obviously be abortive—

Mr. Nally: Not necessarily at all.

Sir J. Mellor: I can only come to the conclusion that the Minister intends to operate retroactively this order which I am now moving to annul. That is the point. I do not think that I need refer again to the past. The order came into force on 28th October. I want to know what the Parliamentary Secretary understands. Is it intended to apply the definition contained in the order to offences alleged to have been committed before the order became operative? I thought the Parliamentary Secretary was going to tell me how. Perhaps he prefers to wait. If the Minister intends to try to apply evidence under the new order to offences committed before the new order became operative, that is highly objectionable on every constitutional ground as retrospective legislation.
The Minister may reply that, after all, we can leave all this to the courts. Last week the Secretary of State for Scotland, in reply to a Question, told me that we make legislation here; we do not interpret it. That is true in the sense that what we say here has no influence whatsoever or should not have any influence over the interpretation placed by the courts upon our legislation. None the less, I feel that when we pass legislation, and particularly delegated legislation like this order, we should know precisely what the Minister thinks the interpretation is, and that is what I am here to ask. I want to know what interpretations the Minister of Fuel and Power places upon this order in the two respects which I have mentioned. Raising the matter in this way by a Motion to annul the order is the only way in which we can obtain his explanations.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. Erroll: I beg to second the Motion.
I want to preface my remarks by pointing out to the House that there are now no fewer than three different compounds present in commercial petrol which are necessary to identify it as such and that the order relates to only one of the three. If I may be allowed to refer to them in passing, one is the red dye to make it visually identifiable; second, there is the special compound, the identity of which has not been generally released, which enables the police litmus paper test to work; and, third, the telltale substance, diphenylamine, which the

analysts are supposed to be able to identify when samples are forwarded to their laboratories for test, examination and report.
It is plain from what has taken place in the Edinburgh courts that the test is not sufficiently discrminating to pick out only the parent compound, namely, diphenylamine proper. The reaction would take place if any of a number of related compounds were present in the sample. Because of this situation it has been necessary for the Minister to bring this further order to the House to widen the range of compounds which may be present or alternatively, if the test is too coarse to pick out only the compound which is present, then a number of other compounds may be deemed to be present in order to satisfy the crude positive reaction obtained by the analyst. This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs, and it could so easily be rectified if reliance were to be placed instead upon the second of the three compounds which are now placed in commercial petrol. The way out of the Minister's dilemma—my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) has pointed out that he is indeed getting into difficulties—is to place reliance on the second compound and not upon the third of the three which I mentioned.
In any event, however, the putting of diphenylamine into the petrol is leading to a considerable extension of black market activities and is causing an outbreak of dishonesty among many of the operatives of petroleum companies who are compelled to operate the scheme. This order places upon them the burden of putting the diphenylamine into the petrol in order, with the other compounds, to make it red. I should like to see the annulment of this order for that reason. It is disturbing the trade unions and workers' organisation concerned that dishonesty should be spreading as the result of the lucrative black market which is growing up through the temptation to forget to put the diphenylamine into the petrol and thus sell as white petrol what was intended to be red. In fact it is significant that black market prices should have dropped somewhat over the last few months, indicating a more plentiful supply, as doubtless the Parliamentary Secretary will know. [Interruption.] It is indeed his business to check—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): Will the hon. Gentleman tell us exactly how he knows what is the black market price of petrol?

Mr. Erroll: I should have thought it was in the interests of the efficient working of any petrol rationing scheme that the current black market price should have been known by the Minister.

Mr. Robens: I am asking the hon. Gentleman how does he know, or is it that he merely reads the same Sunday newspaper as myself.

Mr. Erroll: As far as I know, there was no reference to what I was saying in that Sunday newspaper article. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, there was."] If there was, I failed to read it. It is plain that if the Department is to function efficiently, it must have some knowledge of the black market prices—

Mr. Nally: The hon. Gentleman is taking the responsibility—

Mr. Erroll: —in order to ascertain the cash value of coupons and so on, but that is apart from the subject of the Prayer, and I did not wish to be diverted into the workings of the Ministry of Fuel and Power to that extent. I wanted instead to make the point that the temptation not to put the diphenylamine into the petrol is making it hard for many otherwise honest workers in the petroleum distribution industry—

Mr. Nally: How does the hon. Gentleman know all this?

Lieut.-Colonel Harry Morris: Where did the hon. Gentleman get that information? What authority has the hon. Gentleman for making allegations of that kind?

Mr. Erroll: I have quite sufficient authority for making that statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us what it is."]—and the statement does not come from the Sunday newspaper referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us where it comes from."] The difficulty is that through there being—

Mr. Nally: rose—

Mr. Erroll: I will not give way.

Mr. Nally: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It is a criminal offence to do what the hon. Member suggests is being done in certain places. He says that transport workers yield to temptation and allow petrol to go on the black market because they do not do something which is essential in treating the petrol. That amounts to a criminal charge being alleged by the hon. Member against certain people whom he does not specify. Am I right in assuming that where a Member of this House makes allegations of a criminal offence against any person, whether inside or outside the House, his public obligations carry him far enough to enable us to ask him to justify himself and, indeed, to insist that he provides some evidence for his allegations to the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): There is no such Rule in this House. The hon. Gentleman must, of course, take responsibility for the statements he makes, but when general statements of that kind are made against unidentifiable persons, it is not possible for the Chair to intervene.

Mr. Erroll: The evidence is available to parties who ought to have it made available to them. I would point out, in passing, that the evidence of the number of dismissals from employment of people connected with this work is some indication of what has been going on.

Lieut.-Colonel Morris: Where is the evidence?

Mr. Erroll: And it is some evidence of how badly the red petrol scheme is working. Everybody likes to think that the presence of diphenylamine in the petrol is a sure safeguard but I am quite sure that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will be able to agree with me that the scheme is far from satisfactory, and that the black market in petrol which should have had diphenylamine in it is on the increase, and that he has plenty of evidence to show it. I shall be very glad to supply further evidence if the Parliamentary Secretary does not possess it.
The result of the ineffective operation of these schemes is to create a further area of dishonesty and black market operations and is, therefore, thoroughly unsatisfactory. The right procedure, of course, is properly to ration petrol for


lorries, as was always done and could have been done far better without recourse to diphenylamine or any of its nuclear substituted compounds, or the red dye or the secret police compound. Furthermore, the wording of the regulations is bad, and it would be far better to use the wording of the explanatory note; for the regulations constitute an attempt to ascribe to a well-known chemical compound a meaning other than that ascribed to it by organic chemists. This will only further confuse an issue which is already one of extreme complexity. The final point in my argument is the possibility of the retroactive working of the regulations. I very much hope we shall have assurances that they will not operate retroactively.

8.46 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): I came to the House to reply to the Motion, feeling that the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Goldfield (Sir J. Mellor) was merely taking advantage of his rights to move the annulment of the regulations in order to draw attention to the points which he raised last week in Questions to the Minister.
The subsequent speech of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll), however, was a really amazing doctrine which cannot go by without some remarks from me. The hon. Member has made some very dangerous allegations against the honesty of a body of very hardworking men. He was quite unjustified and ought to present evidence to prove his statements. I was not joking when I said I had read the same newspaper as the hon. Member, but the article in question contained not a word in support of the allegations of the hon. Member, whose action has been very wrong. If hon. Gentlemen opposite were genuinely anxious to stop the black market in petrol they would oppose neither the original regulations nor the present ones. If, however, they want to make political jobbery, this is the way to do it.
The hon. Baronet related the position about the main Act in 1948 and the regulations to be made under it and the fact that under the regulations the Minister prescribed diphenylamine as the ingredient. He asked, as did also the hon.

Member for Altrincham and Sale, whether we would proceed with existing cases which originated prior to the introduction of the new regulations on the basis of the new regulations. The answer is, of course not. How could we do so with regulations which did not specify that they operate retrospectively? We would not proceed in that way in a court of law, and none of my many legal friends in the House would have any hesitation in defending anyone in the courts who was prosecuted under the new regulations for old cases.

Sir J. Mellor: rose—

Mr. Robens: I know exactly what the hon. Baronet is going to say. He will ask, "Then why proceed with it?"

Sir J. Mellor: I should like to proceed, nevertheless.

Mr. Robens: The hon. Member need not ask the question. We proceed with those cases because we have every justification for doing so. The new regulations do not in any way mean that the old regulations were bad. There have been prosecutions under the old regulations, and it would be very wrong for the hon. Baronet, for me or for anyone else in the House to cast doubts upon decisions already given by the courts on evidence. They have come to their decisions in accordance with the law, and I am content to leave it at that. All cases which arose prior to the introduction of the new regulations will be dealt with under the old regulations.
Before I give way to the hon. Baronet, I ought to say that, as regards the case in the Scottish court, I am precluded from pursuing this matter because we are appealing against the decision and will state a case to the divisional court. I am sorry, therefore, that I cannot pursue the very interesting argument which the hon. Baronet raised.

Sir J. Mellor: I am obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary. As he said the matter is now under appeal, that, of course, alters the position. It may be that if they are successful in the appeal it will prove that the new regulation would have been unnecessary, but have they not prejudiced their position by making the new regulation?

Mr. Robens: No, not at all. If the hon. Baronet would be a little patient and


let me finish what I have to say, he would see that there is nothing foolish in this regulation. He must give me an opportunity to reply to some of the points he has raised and then to deal with the regulation. There is one great mistake which the hon. Baronet made in relation to this matter. It is that he thought it was necessary for the prosecution to prove beyond doubt that the prescribed ingredient was in fact there. The prosecution had not to do that at all, but had to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and it was up to the court to decide whether in fact, on the evidence before it, beyond reasonable doubt the prescribed ingredient was present. Each case must be taken on its own basis. People plead guilty, for example, and there are other cases where the circumstances are such that this evidence may not be required at all in order to prove the case. Therefore, to talk about quashing past convictions is, to my mind, quite foolish and something which one would not ask the Home Secretary to deal with at all.

Sir J. Mellor: On a point of Order. The Parliamentary Secretary now starts talking about my having referred to quashing past convictions. I carefully avoided doing that, because I was warned by your predecessor in the Chair that that would be out of Order. As I did not mention that at all, I think the Parliamentary Secretary ought not to raise it now.

Mr. Robens: When the hon. Baronet gets up, he makes too obvious precisely what he is going to say. He sailed too near the wind and succeeded in making the point while telling Mr. Deputy-Speaker that he would keep in Order. It is an old Parliamentary trick which we all use from time to time, but nevertheless it was perfectly clear what he had in mind, and that is my reply to it.
When breaking down crude oil into petrol, the prescribed ingredient is not produced as part of the process nor are the associated substances. When the test is made—and it must be made clear that we do not lay down what the test shall be—it is still for the analyst to prescribe his own test, although we give an example of a test which can be used. What has happened is that the colour reaction on the particular test in question gives the same results for about half a dozen associated substances as the prescribed

ingredient, but in point of fact those associated substances are not within the reach of ordinary individuals at all. They could not be a constituent part of the petrol, but would have to be put in deliberately.
No garage hand anywhere could get hold of them. They are used for certain industrial uses. I am not proposing to say what the industrial uses are. Is it conceivable that a motorist would go to the trouble of searching for some of these compounds, which are ancillary to and associated with a prescribed ingredient, and put them in his tank, just for the pleasure of kidding the police? That is just absurd. The fact is, of course, that because they give the same colour reaction, the new regulations make it very much simpler for the court when an analyst's certificate is given and that analyst is able to say that this petrol does in fact contain the prescribed ingredient, or the associated substances. In other words they make clear beyond doubt what has been added to the petrol so as to make it commercial petrol, and if it is in the tank of a private car it is illegal.
We could have put the whole six substances in the schedule, but assuming that next week a chemist finds two more substances, have we then to come along with a new regulation, including those two new substances, because it is only the associated substances which give the colour reaction? It seems to me that it is sensible and better, in the light of substances being constantly found, to make it perfectly clear that the diphenylamine which is introduced plus the associated substances provide the methods by which we trace commercial petrol. That is the reason for this regulation. Its intention is to prevent a black market in petrol.
I say at once to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale that, of course, there is a black market in petrol, as there is in everything that is in short supply, but we have done more as a Government to try to stamp that out than hon. Members opposite would have done had they had their way, because they have time and time again opposed the introduction of red petrol and steps of that character. We feel that we are perfectly justified in pursuing this course. There is a large body of decent-minded citizens who are motorists; it is a minority who operate on


the black market. We should protect decent-minded honest citizens whenever we can, and this Regulation helps to do that.
If hon. Members were as interested in the protection of the citizen as they seem to be in making some sort of political trick out of regulations that are made, they would not come to this House to complain about this regulation but would be saying, "That is sensible. Make sure you do this in other directions in which a black market exists." I defy hon. Gentlemen to go into the Lobby and vote against this regulation, but if the matter goes to a Division I hope that the House will support it.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. John Foster: In the closing part of his speech the Parliamentary Secretary referred to this Motion as being a political trick. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Everybody on the other side of the House is cheering. Let us examine that assertion. The Parliamentary Secretary has just said that the main body of motorists are decent citizens, with which I agree. He said that it is desirable to stamp out the black market in petrol, with which I agree and with which the majority of the country agrees. Does the hon. Gentleman suppose that it would be a very clever political trick to appeal to the minority of criminals? That would be pretty stupid, would it not? What are we doing?

Mr. Nally: The allegation is not that the hon. Member and the party opposite are anxious to help and support a minority of wrongdoers. Their offence lies in trying to persuade decent and honest people that it is a good and proper thing to ignore and hold in contempt regulations devised for their protection which are introduced by this Government.

Mr. Foster: That is nonsense, but I am dealing with the point of the Parliamentary Secretary saying that it is a smart political trick. What is the smart political trick in appealing to the criminals? The majority of the country is decent and objects to the black market. How is it a smart political trick to say that we are in favour of the black market? It is lunacy—

Mr. Nally: If the hon. Member is asking me a question the answer is perfectly simple. The despicable quality of

what the Opposition does consists in the extent to which, in the case of perfectly justifiable laws and regulations which are intended for the protection of the honest majority, the Opposition seeks for political purposes to persuade the honest majority that there is either an infringement of liberty or some other offence against the normal requirements and liberties of the average citizen in the regulations which the Government introduce. The result is that on the questions arising from petrol black marketing since the beginning of the regulations, since 1945, the Opposition has in effect been on the side of the black market and against honest citizens.

Mr. Foster: The hon. Member is still in the same difficulty. If it is so despicable and if it is so wrong, how can it be a smart political trick unless the majority of the country have an appeal made to them, because they are despicable? A despicable thing cannot be a smart political trick. Now we come back to the Parliamentary Secretary who said that this was a political trick. He must think we have gone off our heads. I understand the Parliamentary Secretary is saying that we are so stupid that we want to do something despicable and wrong because we think it is a smart political trick. If hon. Gentlemen opposite think that will cut any ice in the country they are much mistaken.
What my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) wanted to know was why the regulation was worded in that fashion, with this expression:
shall be deemed to include.
The hon. Gentleman gave an explanation which was not an explanation. He said it was nonsense to set out all the substitutes which constituted the "nuclear substituted D" as I will call it. Why, he asked, should it not be written in plain English? The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) who made an interruption left the Chamber in order not to wait for an answer. I shall give an answer which will satisfy what the hon. Gentleman wants. I agree with him on this point. I ask that the prescribed nuclear shall be D and include substituted D. That is all it need be and the reason for saying it should be "deemed to include," is that it may have a retroactive effect.
The hon. Member says he has been advised, but his advisers may be wrong as were the advisers of the present Secretary of State for War over the electricity cuts. Therefore would he consider wording this properly and not have the words, "deemed to include." That is useless and unnecessary legal jargon. It is much clearer to the ordinary man to say that the ingredient shall be D and any substituted D. I appeal to reason on both sides of the House that surely that is much better wording.
The second point is with regard to prosecutions now pending. If the decision of the Sheriff is right anybody can successfully defend a motorist accused of this offence. Therefore it means that the prosecutions which will go on can, if his decision is right, be successfully defended. Surely those prosecutions should be held up until it is decided whether the decision is right or wrong. If he is right they will have to be dropped, and if he is wrong they can be gone on with—

Mr. Nally: Even where defendants plead guilty?

Mr. Foster: Defendants may plead guilty, but where they know they have a successful defence it is a great temptation to a man to demand that the prosecutor shall prove his case. He is not going to say, "I did it." He will say, "You prove I did it." In our criminal law we have always allowed a man to do that. The reason is obviously founded on good sense and ethics, namely, that if a man were convicted on insufficient evidence when he was really guilty, the next man who was not guilty might be convicted on the same insufficient evidence. It has always been held that people may say to the prosecution, "You prove it." Morality may demand from a man who knows that he is guilty that he should plead guilty—

Mr. Nally: Some do.

Mr. Foster: I agree that some do, but a man might say, knowing that he had a good defence "You prove it," and I do not think that I could blame him.
What do the Government propose to do? If a person is prosecuted for an old offence and puts up this defence and is found guilty by a court which does not follow the Sheriff's decision, will the

Government make him appeal and perhaps bear the costs? It seems rather hard just because the Ministry have drafted a regulation which does not work out right that people should be prosecuted at present. The proper way would be to hold up prosecutions until we know whether that decision was right or wrong. If the decision is not upheld then the prosecutions can go on because those accused may have committed an offence, but if it is upheld they will not have committed an offence in the sense that the prosecution may be able to prove it, and that is the only sense in the criminal law which is of importance.
Hon. Members must bear in mind the principle of criminal law—it is one of the corner stones—that the prosecution have to prove the case, even though if the real facts were known the man would be as guilty as hell.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Member must not use that expression.

Mr. Foster: I beg your pardon.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As guilty as the Government.

Mr. Foster: In those circumstances the defendant who can say to the prosecution, "You prove it" is entitled to demand that the case against him should be proved. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain these two points. The first is the small matter about the wording which is a puzzle unless some retrospective intention is behind it. The second which is much more important, is the question why he does not hold up the prosecutions, because it is not right that people should be convicted when the prosecution cannot prove their case.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Nally: Let us assume that at the moment—indeed we have no need to assume it because it is a fact—there are pending a number of prosecutions under the old regulation in which, because of the weight of evidence of various kinds, not necessarily in the chemical formula of the petrol, people indicted have decided to plead guilty, and have made statements to that effect to the police. What we have had tonight from the hon. Member for Northwich


(Mr. J. Foster), of whom I am very fond, is a touching and plaintive plea to allow these gentlemen who already know themselves to be guilty, and who intend to plead guilty, to be left alone for the time being because it is unjust to proceed against them.
It is true that when we are dealing with a black market of any kind, whether it be at one Ministry or another, periods arise when it is possible to detect some loophole, or it may be that a decision of the courts creates a situation in which a regulation must be reconsidered. But it does not follow that because of that, the original regulation was bad. What it means, in effect, is that the purpose of the new regulation replacing the old is simply to pull the noose a little tighter around the throats of those who should be dealt with in the most severe way possible.
I repeat that, whilst one accepts as a matter of course that any hon. Member is genuinely anxious to clear up some of these offences, it happens to be the hard fact that since 1945 I cannot recollect at any time, either in Parliamentary questions, Parliamentary discussions on regulations or in general Debate, that we have ever had from the Opposition one sound or constructive proposal on these matters. With all the array of legal talent, particularly that which is present tonight, we have never had from the Opposition one really constructive suggestion designed to assist the Government in their war upon the black market.
That is particularly true in relation to petrol. The hon. Baronet who introduced the discussion will recall the time when the authorities in Scotland were holding an investigation which involved two things. They were investigating, first of all, illegal slaughtering for the black market and also black market petrol, which was in this case part of the same racket. The officers concerned in association with the police were holding up cars for inspection from time to time. They were doing this quite politely and courteously, and anyone with any elementary common sense—

Mr. J. Foster: On a point of Order. Is this in order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it is relevant so far, but I am listening very carefully.

Mr. Erroll: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that we have suggested a very good solution, and I have done so tonight—to ration lorry petrol properly, which the Minister has failed to do?

Mr. Nally: I was making the point that investigations in Scotland were proceeding in a two-pronged attack upon the black market in petrol and the illegal slaughtering of animals. The first hostile question that was asked in this House, designed to prevent the authorities from conducting this quite proper investigation, was put by the hon. Baronet, who was anxious to prevent these officers from examining in a perfectly courteous way people driving cars who were proceeding in these areas.
One does not allege, indeed it would be improper to allege, that the Opposition desire to serve the cause of people engaged in this sort of illicit traffic.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the many speeches made from this side of the House on the most important black market of all, which was the attack on sterling being made by people from the non-sterling group?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are now going much too wide, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will confine himself to this particular order.

Mr. Nally: I was making the point that the Opposition attacks upon these regulations have been, in effect, an encouragement to those who would evade them, and an encouragement to all those who hold the law in contempt, to all those who hold honest dealing in contempt and are an invitation to all to regard this and other regulations presented by the Ministry as being not only something which they can ignore, but something which they ought to ignore as being unjust and ethically to be opposed or evaded.
I say in conclusion that this House is entitled to know when Prayers are put down against regulations of this kind, whether or not it is the honest purpose of the Opposition to divide upon them, and whether it is the honest intention of the Opposition, provided that they do not receive satisfactory replies from whoever speaks for the Government, to divide the House. The sincerity of the Opposition can be tested by this means. They have no intention of dividing, and they did


not have any intention when the Debate began. This is another illustration of introducing into this House and the Press of the country, under the disguise of protecting the subject, part of the Opposition's propaganda campaign to make impossible of operation regulations designed purely to protect the public. Thereby indirectly the Opposition gives comfort to every crook in the country who seeks to batten upon the nation in its time of difficulty.

9.14 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: I cannot accept the contention of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) that we can only take part in Debates on Prayers in this House if we are going to divide on them. After all, there are many occasions on which they provide the only means of making a protest against something which ought to be the subject of such protests, and it is for that purpose that I intervene now. I feel that some protest should be made against this very cumbersome and elaborate, as well as inefficient, method of attaining the object, however worthy it may be, intended by these two regulations.
I had a scientific education a long time ago, and I have forgotten most of what I then learnt on the chemistry side, but I am still left with a considerable respect for scientists and scientific methods. I think that the procedure envisaged in these regulations is really making nonsense of science. Science is being treated with complete disrespect; it is really being prostituted for the purposes of these regulations. The original intention was to find some substance by which red petrol could be distinguished, but why, in this year of 1949, with our present chemical knowledge, should a substance have been chosen which afterwards was found to contain four or five similar substances that gave the same reaction?
As a result of that initial mistake this second set of regulations has had to be brought forward, in which, in effect, we really say that when we speak of diphenylamine, which I agree could be much better called "D," we also include five other substances which are not diphenylamine at all. Diphenylamine, presumably, has its formula as well as the other five substances. We are deeming that diphenylamine also includes five other substances which may be of the

same basic structure, or closely allied to diphenylamine, but which are definitely not diphenylamine. That is really making nonsense of science for the purposes of the law, and I protest against it because I do not think it was necessary. However, nothing can be done about it now and there is not much more we can say about it.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Maude: May I bring this matter back to the practical point of what is to be done? It has been suggested that all the prosecutions under the old regulations should not be proceeded with, but I would not suggest that for one moment. Where previous admissions were made, one would naturally proceed under the old regulations, but where admissions had not been made by the suspected person and where there is no other evidence, such as someone who saw the petrol being put into the car, the Crown is, of course, in difficulty. The Crown is in a difficulty because if the Sheriff is right, then the Ministry may be carrying on a number of prosecutions which will be abortive, and if these prosecutions turn out to be abortive, it is quite obvious that the courts will impose very heavy costs against the Crown. In that connection, I rather hoped we should hear a word from the Minister.
I should like to put in a personal word against some parts of the speech of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally). I know it is tiresome to be kept here on these occasions, I know that people tend to think that everyone else is very silly and that they themselves are very clever, but when my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) is doing what we know he conceives to be his duty in connection with these orders—as he has done for some years—I bitterly resent the sort of attack made by the hon. Member for Bilston. He suggested that anybody who indulges in such matters—it may be with some pernicketiness and not always cleverly—and does his best to examine these things should be at once accused of wanting to do something dishonest.

Mr. Nally: I made no accusation about the hon. Baronet's honesty; it is his wisdom which was in question.

Mr. Maude: I suggest that there is not one of us in this House at the moment who is not quite certain that the hon. Gentleman's explanation is quite unsatisfactory.


The suggestion made against my hon. Friend and some of his hon. Friends was that for months, if not for years, they have been trying to do a very dishonest thing—to encourage those persons who have not only been dabbling in, but are absolutely up to the neck in, a black market in petrol. When the hon. Member for Bilston reads his speech tomorrow, I think he will regret it; I do not believe it reflects his ordinary nature at all.
It was a great mistake to allege anything of that sort. It is important to avoid a great deal of cant about this matter. Any suggestion that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield has some information, improperly obtained, showing that there was a black market in petrol, when nine Members out of ten have more than a shrewd suspicion

to exactly the same effect as the Minister, namely, that there is a black market, is nothing but cant and humbug. It is much better to leave my hon. Friends alone; they are trying their best to see that the regulations which the Ministry have introduced are regulations which work. After all, if it is found that a Sheriff in Scotland has come to a decision which has upset this order, is it not right that the Government's nose should be rubbed in it just a little, with just a little tiny pinch of pepper?

Question put.
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 24th October, 1949, entitled the Motor Spirit (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations, 1949 (S.I., 1949, No. 1973), a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th October, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes, 48; Noes, 190.

Division No. 273.]
AYES
[9.25 p.m.


Barlow, Sir J.
Glyn, Sir R.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Scott, Lord W.


Bossom, A. C.
Grimston, R. V.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hurd, A.
Studholme, H. G.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Butcher, H. W.
Keeling, E. H.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Challen, C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Turton, R. H.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Walker-Smith, D.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Nield, B. (Chester)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Drewe, C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.



Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Pickthorn, K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gage, C.
Sanderson, Sir F.
Sir John Mellor and Mr. Erroll.




NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Cullen, Mrs.
Guy, W. H.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)


Awbery, S. S.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.


Ayles, W. H.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Baird, J.
Deer, G.
Hardy, E. A.


Balfour, A.
Delargy, H. J.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Dodds, N. N.
Haworth, J.


Barstow, P. G.
Donovan, T.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Barton, C.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Herbison, Miss M.


Berry, H.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Hobson, C. R.


Bing, G. H. C.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Holman, P.


Blenkinsop, A.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Houghton, Douglas


Blyton, W. R.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Hoy, J.


Bowden, H. W.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Hubbard, T.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Ewart, R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Fairhurst, F.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Fernyhough, E.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Follick, M.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Burden, T. W.
Foot, M. M.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Burke, W. A.
Forman, J. C.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)


Champion, A. J.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)


Cobb, F. A.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
John, W.


Cocks, F. S.
Gibson, C. W.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)


Coldrick, W.
Gilzean, A.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Collindridge, F.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Kenyon, C.


Collins, V. J.
Gooch, E. G.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Grey, C. F.
Kinley, J.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Grierson, E.
Lang, G.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Lavers, S.




Leonard, W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Steele, T.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Stubbs, A. E.


Lindgren, G. S.
Pannell, T. C.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Lipson, D. L.
Pearson, A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Peart, T. F.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Longden, F.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


McAdam, W.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


McGhee, H. G.
Price, M. Philips
Tiffany, S.


McGovern, J.
Proctor, W. T.
Tolley, L.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Pryde, D. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


McKinlay, A. S.
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


McLeavy, F.
Randall, H. E.
Viant, S. P.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Rankin, J.
Warbey, W. N.


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Richards, R.
Watkins, T. E.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Watson, W. M.


Mann, Mrs. J.
Robens, A.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edink'gh, E.)


Messer, F.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Royle, C.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mikardo, Ian
Sargood, R.
Wigg, George


Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Scollan, T.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Mitchison, G. R.
Scott-Elliot, W.
Wilkes, L.


Moody, A. S.
Segal, Dr. S.
Wilkins, W. A.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Sharp, Granville
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Simmons, C. J.
Willis, E.


Murray, J. D.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Nally, W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Smith. H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Woods, G. S.


Noel-Buxton, Lady
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Yates, V. F.


Oldfield, W. H.
Sorensen, R. W.



Orbach, M.
Sparks, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Snow and Mr. George Wallace.

Orders of the Day — MALTA

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wilkins.]

9.33 p.m.

Mr. Follick: In presenting Malta's difficulties to the House I should like to explain what those difficulties are and how they have arisen. I have one proposal to make which would to some degree alleviate those difficulties. Malta is suffering today from—

Mr. Drayson: Socialist Government.

Mr. Follick: No, from overcrowding of the island. I have made a small analysis of the condition of the island, comparing it with that of the Isle of Wight and that of the Isle of Arran. Malta, one of a small group of islands, has 112 square miles and 300,000 inhabitants, who are 4.19 to the acre. The Isle of Wight has 114 square miles but only 93 people to the acre. The Isle of Arran, which is well under-inhabited, has 05 people to the acre. The Isle of Arran has 165 square miles and only 5,000 inhabitants.
Malta, with 112 square miles has 300,000 inhabitants and its population is increasing in number very rapidly. It has

a balance of 8,000 a year births over deaths. That in itself is a great aggravation of the unemployment question. The actual unemployment in Malta is 1,840, but if the dockyards sackings take place in March there will be another 1,200 added to that, which will make over 3,000, and when the reconstruction finishes, another 1,000 will be added, making 4,000. If we add to that the 20,000 women of employable age who are not working, that makes 24,000, and on top of that the 8,000 a year surplus of births over deaths will in five years be 40,000, which will mean round about 64,000 to 65,000 unemployed in five years time. That is the essential difficulty from which Malta is suffering.
The second great difficulty is the scarcity of the sources of revenue. Apart from the lottery which is held in Malta, there do not seem to be great sources of revenue. The old Maltese industries of lace, filigree work, embroidered handkerchiefs and such like have practically dried up on account of the scarcity of tourists. Up to about 1924 or 1925 Malta used to have a "fishing fleet." That was not a fleet which went out fishing but a great Maltese season during which women went there fishing for husbands on their way to Egypt. That brought in a large income to Malta, but it has since closed down.
I want to make a proposal to the House for the alleviation of this distress—distress which, if not attended to, will make Malta a slum Colony. These valiant, courageous people stood by Britain from the very first day of the war, introduced conscription when we did so, and had 45,000 buildings destroyed on the island. When all is said and done, if Malta had not stood by us the war might have taken a different turn. They stood up to a three years' battering from the air—longer than we did. In 1942 they had continual, persistent air battering day and night, but the bravery of the Maltese stood firm for Britain. Even if Malta had given in and surrendered, nobody could have blamed her. Many nations gave in with a far lighter battering than Malta had, but Malta stood by Britain. It is true that we were very enthusiastic at the time and we awarded Malta the George Cross, but that is not enough. The award of a George Cross is a high honour but we have to do a little more than that for such a strong-hearted part of the Empire which showed her attachment to this country by giving lives and by deeds of great loyalty.
Since the end of the war we have given to Malta what we call in this country a grant of £22,775.000 and what we call a gift of £10 million, making together £32,775,000. Now the Maltese dislike those two words "grants" and "gifts." They say they are neither grants nor gifts. They were battered by the forces of Germany and Italy and they were entitled to reparations from those two countries. If the British Government has renounced to a certain extent reparations from Germany and Italy, there is no reason for Malta to be deprived of that money to repay her for what she has suffered. So the Maltese say that these were neither grants nor gifts but were payments for the battering and the loss through destruction that befell Malta in her great test when she stood by this country.
I have tried to sketch the difficulties of Malta. It is over-populated. Up to 1914, emigration from Malta kept the population more or less balanced but, like all other nations after the first World War, restraint was put upon emigration by the countries to which emigration should be

directed, and this population has been accumulating in Malta. Curiously enough, this week an agreement has been reached by the Maltese Government to charter a ship to take 817 emigrants to Australia. Now the Australians have done wisely in accepting these emigrants because the Maltese are good craftsmen, willing, quiet and industrious workers. If Australia is wise this will be only the first trial of taking Maltese to that vast continent which is so thirsty for people—in fact, a token embarkation.
I should like to bring to the House a proposal that I made to the Governor when I was in Malta about 18 months or two years ago. He thought it so useful that we went together to see the Prime Minister of Malta, Dr. Boffa. Dr. Boffa called some of his own Cabinet Ministers together for me to repeat to them this proposal which, while it will not solve the difficulties of Malta, will certainly alleviate them; it could also help us in this country to a certain extent. This proposal has appeared already in print in this country, in "The Times" and in other papers. In fact, the Maltese Government sent a representative to see me here in London and I made him a promise that I would bring to the attention of the House this question and this proposal.
I beg the House, therefore, to listen with patience to this proposal. I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary is here, for he is a very good Colonial Secretary. I have been through more Colonies lately than most people in this House, and I speak of him with very high regard and esteem. He is much more highly regarded in the Colonies than I imagined prior to my visits. The suggestion is to inaugurate cruises similar to the "strength through joy" cruises established by Goebbels in Germany before the war.

Mr. Drayson: Gestapo.

Mr. Follick: Not Gestapo, but "strength through joy." [Interruption.] This is a serious matter. We are discussing the difficulties of a Colony which has been very brave and loyal to us. We should put aside for a moment any irrelevant talk and see whether the proposals are worth the consideration of the Colonial Secretary.
The cruises will not be for people accustomed to standards of luxury but for young people aged between 18 and 30 who are prepared to take the rough with the smooth. Four obsolete aircraft carriers will be necessary and will be fitted to take about 500 passengers each, in bunks, without any luxury. The passengers themselves will do all the light work, the crew will do only the heavy work and the cooking. Because of the huge landing decks of the aircraft carriers, these ships will have the finest decks in the world for games, sports and dancing, and in the warm summer evenings the passengers can sleep on the decks.
It is calculated that to enable these cruises to continue throughout the year four aircraft carriers will be needed. Accountants and people who should know the workings of these matters, with whom I have discussed the proposal, say that it could be operated at £1 per day per person; 500 passengers, therefore, would yield £500 a day. Each cruise would extend over a period of three weeks: a week for the outward journey, a week on the island and a week for the journey back home.
The ships would call at Gibraltar on the way out and at a North African port on the homeward journey. They would pick up their food at the North African port, so that no food at all would be taken from this country. It is much cheaper to buy in North Africa and the passengers could obtain the benefit of tropical provisions.

Dr. Morgan: What set of workmen does the hon. Member propose would spend £21 out of their hard-earned money, at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is asking us not to spend money, to make this fantastic trip to Malta in order to help that island?

Mr. Follick: The hon. Member was born in a Colony

Sir William Darling: He knows.

Mr. Follick: That Colony has been and still is, a slum Colony, yet the hon. Member is asking me not to help Malta.
Everybody who takes a holiday nowadays saves up for it and, even at Margate, Bournemouth or Blackpool, usually spends more than £1 a day. By this scheme we could stagger holidays

properly—[Laughter.] This is not a joke. One hon. Member on the extreme Left and one hon. Member on the extreme Right who saw the proposal in "The Times" have come to me and said it is a very fine idea. This is not a laughing matter, but a matter which has been gone into very carefully, otherwise I would not be making this proposal here tonight. We could stagger holidays, because no one would mind taking a holiday in November, December, January, or February, if they knew that for most of the time they would have fine weather—

Sir Wavell Wakefield: A nice trip across the Bay of Biscay.

Mr. Follick: This is not a laughing matter. I think the hon. Member, of all hon. Members, ought to know better. On the island itself a camp could be set up similar to Butlin's camps here. Holidaymakers would be able to have a much better holiday, with almost guaranteed fine weather, than they could possibly have here in summer time and they would be able to get it there all the year round.
When I mentioned the Butlin style of camp the Maltese were rather perturbed and sent a representative to me to ask me not to propose a Butlin's camp. I said that I was not proposing a Butlin's camp such as Butlin's enterprises in the Bahamas and in Bermuda because I had seen enough of them to know that that is the wrong sort of thing. The sort of thing which is wanted is the style of Butlin camp that we have in this country, which the Maltese themselves would run and out of which they would make a profit.
We reckon that in the first year, if this scheme were operated, about 20,000 holidaymakers could be carried to Malta and back during the whole year. They would have a chance of seeing two Colonies and of visiting a North African town. They would have plenty of boating, sailing, golf and tennis on the island. I know Malta well and I know that this is possible. They would have recreation at reasonable prices. They would be able to buy cigarettes at 50 for 2s. 9d., because there would be no duty payable on board the ship, and whisky at 8s. a bottle—if they could get whisky—free of duty.
This could be made a very pleasurable trip and it would bring money to Malta, because the old industries of lace making,


filigree silver work and embroidered handkerchiefs could be revived and a good many of the women could be employed in those industries, as visitors to Malta would buy such articles as souvenirs to bring away. From our point of view we should be able to operate staggered holidays for British industry, which we have always tried to achieve. Instead of having holidays crowded into July and August, they could be spread over the whole year.
I want to emphasise that this is not a proposal for luxury travellers, but for young people from every walk of life who want to take the rough with the smooth. There would be a mixing of people from every strata of our society and they would get to know each other.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is my hon. Friend proposing that these tourists should go on British ships, and if so would that not inure to the benefit of Britain rather than to the benefit of Malta? Will he suggest something that would help the industries of Malta and really help to solve the problem with which Malta is confronted?

Mr. Follick: If my hon. and learned Friend will give me time, I will explain all that. I have explained about the industries of Malta and how the incoming tourists themselves would be sufficient to revive those industries. The British Government will have to give to Malta these aircraft carriers, which would have to be converted. Malta has not got the money to purchase them. It is not a big repayment for all that Malta has done for us. If this scheme could be worked out and made profitable, producing an income for the Colony, it would be worth our while to encourage it to this extent. It would not be a great sacrifice on our part to give four obsolete aircraft carriers for the purpose.
The oil for these aircraft carriers could be brought in from the Near East, so that there would not be the great haul right to this country. If that were done, Malta would once more have a flow of tourists year in and year out which would provide an income for the country. Should the tourist traffic at any time not be sufficient to keep the four ships fully engaged, those that could be spared could be used for taking more Maltese emigrants to Australia or whatever part of

the world would accept them. Something must be done to relieve Malta of that tremendous excess of population which it has at present. There is nothing which we in this country ought not to be prepared to do to reward the island for the great help which it gave us. What I am now proposing would cost this country very little indeed and might be a partial solution of some of Malta's difficulties.

Mr. Hector Hughes: My hon. Friend promised to say something before he sat down about assisting the industries of Malta; he has said nothing whatever about that. He has done nothing except envisage this fantastic tourist scheme. Will he say something about the industries of Malta?

Mr. Follick: I do not know what my hon. and learned Friend does with his ears; evidently he does not listen with them. I have already said that this intake of 20,000 tourists a year to Malta will be enough to revive the industries which Malta used to have and which used to be prosperous. I repeated that twice.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure that the House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) for once again turning our attention to the problem of a self-governing island within the British Commonwealth, the Island of Malta. No one would quarrel with the concluding words which he used that something must be done to get Malta out of her difficulties. He made two suggestions in the course of his most interesting speech. One was for a survey in anticipation of an unemployment problem in the next few years, which is by no means inevitable and which could most certainly be averted by wise stewardship. His other was a suggested solution of Malta's problem which I do not think anyone in the House would really think touches the fundamental problem. However, the hon. Member's intentions were good. If only one could say the same of all those who also sit on the benches opposite!
We welcome this return to a problem which must tax our joint statesmanship—the problem of the United Kingdom, the British Empire and the self-governing Colony of Malta. I agree with the hon. Member that all parties are anxious for her prosperity. It does not require the


hon. Gentleman's command of, I believe, 10 different languages to stress that fact before the British House of Commons. We are awaiting a White Paper on the problems of Malta. Inquiry today at the Colonial Office elicited the fact that it is in draft, but not yet printed. We have no quarrel with the Government on this matter. They did not choose his Debate. It is a Private Member's Adjournment, and a very good subject to raise, but the Government did not choose this occasion. Apart from that, there are two Governments involved in the preparation of this White Paper, the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Malta. Naturally where two self-governing Governments—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Collindridge.]

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Where two Governments are involved—although one Government is responsible for the White Paper, it involves the consideration of the attitude and actions of two Governments—it obviously takes a little longer than if His Majesty's Government were alone responsible for the contents of that White Paper. We shall await this with the greatest possible interest. It is to be hoped that some time will be found—it will have to be found by the Government because now, alas, all the Supply Days for this Session are exhausted and the Opposition cannot do it—for us to consider these various problems.
We are all of us proud of our historic association with Malta in war and peace. That brave, loyal and lovely island, like us, is an island fortress, and like us is also anxious to stand on her own feet. Anything we can do to help Malta now to stand on her own feet we shall certainly do; and to make of her self-government a reality within the British Commonwealth and Empire. No one can avoid the conclusion that, with the granting of self-government to Malta, she became, in all aspects of her domestic policy, master in her own house. There can be no house in the British Empire more important from our mutual point of view and of more historic interest than the Island of Malta. Neither they nor us can be fully independent if we depend

on the aid of other people. This is a fact with which I think the Government, along with the Opposition, will wholly agree.
Various proposals have from time to time been advanced to help Malta in her difficulties. I do not seriously think that the creation on a large scale in the depth of winter of a revival of the German scheme of "strength through joy" trips will really get down to the basic problem with which Malta is faced; though I share with the hon. Gentleman the hope that with returning prosperity to that island it may be possible to grant an opportunity to her citizens to see other parts of the British Empire. When her economic problems are on the way to a proper solution, let us hope that she, like us, will be able to take prolonged and happy holidays. But at the moment our problems are far too severe.
I personally, from my own interest in aviation matters, have always hoped that we would honour the pledge given to Malta by the Coalition Government that she would for all foreseeable time remain a great air base. We have had an Adjournment Debate on that which I raised, and nothing has happened since to alter the view that we owe an obligation to Malta to do all we can to see that she remains an important air base in our Empire communications.
That by itself is not enough. We must also encourage in every way the Maltese industries. The hon. Member quite rightly mentioned the lace industry. The working of the British Purchase Tax on Maltese lace is a severe handicap to that industry. We ought to look again at the consequence of our own internal legislation on those parts of the Empire where they work harshly.
I hope that the Secretary of State for the Colonies will once more consult with the Treasury to see whether something can be done to help an industry which, though it needs the advantage of constant tourists, does not wholly depend on their physical presence in Malta. There are other local industries of great importance. I hope that we shall always give priority to them and that His Majesty's Government, at Geneva, Havana or elsewhere, will never sign any international undertaking which will preclude us from giving preferences to our Maltese fellow subjects in regard to their vital industries.
But, of course, as everybody realises, the main interests of the Maltese at the moment are in His Majesty's dockyards in the island. We must await the full White Paper which will give us all the facts which only the Government know. We do, however, know enough at the moment to realise that we had in 1938 in Malta 8,000 men and women—naturally I think most were men—working in His Majesty's dockyards. The figure in October, 1949, was 12,000. The number was largely swollen during the war. Malta responded readily and bravely to the needs of war, but no one seriously suggests that a particular increase of that kind in the number of dockyard workers ought for all time to be perpetuated, or that we are disloyal or ungrateful to Malta if we do not believe this to be possible.
A great many industries in the sister island here—the United Kingdom—were also largely increased during the war, and naturally the people could not be certain that they would be able to remain in those industries when the needs of the war were over. It would be no help to Malta if the United Kingdom, through the Admiralty Vote, should bankrupt itself and be quite incapable of fulfilling those obligations which still remain to our friends and fellow citizens in Malta. We must, however, see that any cuts in the Admiralty dockyards throughout the British Empire are fairly and evenly distributed, that they are certainly not concentrated on Malta, that Malta does not have to bear an unequal share of the burden.
I hope that when the White Paper is published we shall have facts which will clear our minds about this. At the moment we know the number of people who have been given dismissal orders in Malta. We know, on the other hand, that between 1st January of this year and the end of July some 2,000 vacancies in the British dockyards in the United Kingdom which had arisen in those six months have not been filled. That leads us to think that the United Kingdom dockyard workers are bearing a share of this inevitable cut; but we want fuller figures so that we can know how wisely this has been done. We shall await the White Paper, with that guide in it, with the utmost interest.
We must also do all that we can to see that the Maltese dockyards get an ever-increasing share of work. I am not sure of the legal position, but those dockyards are the main responsibility of the Government. Merchant ships from this country and from all over the world can well be guided there for necessary repairs. We were very much reassured by the statement made by one of the junior Ministers speaking for the Admiralty a few days ago that it was the policy of the British Government to give the Maltese dockyards all the possible merchant shipping repair work that they could. We wish Godspeed to that service which the Maltese are highly qualified to do and which we hope they will be given in ever-increasing quantities.
Then we must face the problem of emigration. No country likes to regard its economic future as being one of unloading proportions of its population on other parts of the world; but the history of the British Empire would be a very different one if that had been the prevailing view throughout the centuries. We can assure the Maltese that in so far as their citizens go to other parts of the Empire, that will never work to Malta's loss. What is the gain of Australia, for example, or any other part of the Empire, will never be to Malta's loss in the long run. Just as we ourselves may well have to face up to well-worked-out plans of emigration, involving not one section of the community but a whole variety of sections, so Malta must face up to that problem also. We will do all we can. The initiative must lie with the self-governing Government of Malta. But the British Government, I feel sure, and this will stand also for the Opposition, will give them all the help they can in their task.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to emigration to Australia, and suggested that it had just started. Actually, Lord Strickland, once an Australian Governor and for all time honourably associated through himself and his family with Malta, did a good deal to start it a third of a century ago. Anything that is done in future in Australia or any other part of the Empire we will certainly help—both Government and Opposition—because there is no quarrel between our parties as regards the future of Malta. We are deeply involved in her welfare


and we agree on the broad lines by which it can be advanced. We would welcome any extension of the "Westward Ho" scheme for bringing people from Malta here and giving them a chance in those industries or professions, like nursing, in which we have need for new people. In anything that the Government can do to give priority to British citizens, including the Maltese, they will have the loyal support of the Opposition.
Lastly, comes the question of cash. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the aid given by the United Kingdom to Malta, in so far as it was an attempt to restore her war damage, must certainly never be painted as if it was represented as a generous gift by British taxpayers to people who have done nothing in return, and, in so far as it has been painted like that, it is very unfortunate. The food subsidies are in a different category, and no self-governing country could regard itself as independent if it had to accept foor subsidies from another part of the Empire. That problem must now be faced by the Governments.
As to the war damage contribution, that is a joint responsibility, and, if Malta had not been so gallant in the war, undoubtedly the war would have taken a very different turn, and the damage that came down upon that island, not only because of the attack upon institutions of freedom and liberty which they valued, but also because of their association with the United Kingdom and the Empire, is something for which we neither can nor wish to rid ourselves of our responsibility. We of the Opposition, at the time when the Malta Bill was before Parliament, made an attempt to separate by means of Amendments the war damage contribution and the reconstruction contribution, and we urged that these should not be finalised or lumped together. This is not the time for developing this argument, but, if it had been done, it might have been easier now to make plans and make progress more than we have in fact done.
That is the position, and we shall await the White Paper with interest. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman who raised this Debate, and who never lacks zeal in raising vital problems in this House; and I hope that the Secretary of State will give us some indication of the important things that will be in the White Paper so that Parliament may know a

little ahead what are the intentions of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Before the hon. Gentleman finishes, has he any suggestions about the indigenous industries of Malta and the problem of how to deal with the surplus population?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am content to leave that to anybody who reads HANSARD tomorrow and the account of my speech.

10.14 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): The difficulty which faces this House in talking about Malta is that it is a self-governing Colony, except that, in a few matters, this Government has a responsibility, and it is scarcely possible for us to indicate to the Maltese Government how their economy should be planned or how their financial difficulties should be overcome. We have tried to maintain a jealous regard for the self-governing responsibilities of Malta, and therefore we can discuss this problem tonight only within very real limitations. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) has made it clear that the House will be in possession of a great deal of additional information in regard to Maltese problems in the course of a few weeks.
If I may do so without trespassing on the constitutional position of Malta, I should like to say a few words in regard to the difficulties confronting that territory at the present time. I welcome the opportunity given to us to look at some of these problems. I recognise that there is a basic problem in Malta that is almost insoluble, which faces the Maltese Government with a very considerable difficulty. Here is an island, as has been pointed out, with a fairly considerable and dense population and with an economy hopelessly insufficient and inadequate to meet the needs of that population, which is increasing rapidly year by year to such an extent that scarcely any emigration arrangements can prove adequate to cope with it. And so we have this dual problem, the insufficient economy to cope with the present population problem, and the problem of the rapidly increasing population.
It has been my responsibility in recent months to discuss many of the problems of Malta with the Prime Minister of that


Colony. I have tried to observe the position as between the United Kingdom and Malta, and I have done nothing, I hope, which interferes with the integrity of that territory in the field of government. I have expressed to the Prime Minister my own alarm about the future position when the reconstruction work in Malta comes to an end. At the present time there is a very large unexpended sum which, in the field of rehabilition and reconstruction, may possibly meet the needs of Malta for a period of four or five years, but when that money is exhausted and the reconstruction work is done, a most real problem will be presented to Malta as to how it can sustain its unemployed and the increasing numbers who are being born in that territory.
It has been suggested that the finances of Malta are insufficient for certain of her major problems. On behalf of His Majesty's Government, I have made it clear that we have a continuing interest in the well-being of the island and the people there, and that we are anxious to be of what practical assistance we can in finding a way through the difficulties confronting Malta.
We have therefore suggested that the Maltese Government might take the initiative in examining the viability of the economy of Malta, in bringing to our notice what might be done in the reconstruction of her economy, extending her industries and meeting some of the difficulties confronting her at the moment. Likewise, in connection with the exploitation of her whole financial resources, we have suggested that she might have the assistance of someone of great experience from this country to guide her in tackling her financial problems. We now wait on the Maltese Government. The offer has been made that we would wish to assist her in such an examination. We recognise the very grave difficulties ahead, but until the Maltese Government themselves ask for our aid and suggest to us that such an examination should be made, we are quite unable, at our end, to deal with the problems which face her.
I have said, further, that His Majesty's Government would be prepared, in the light of the report of the expert, to sit down and examine the recommendations and see in what ways we can be of practical assistance. We are anxious that the

economy of Malta should be viable and wish to do what we can to assist her, because we realise how grave are her difficulties. Meantime, at her request, we have been trying to be of assistance in a number of ways. We have, for instance, been trying to find new outlets for employment and to assist in regard to certain public works in Malta and in the matter of immigration.
I should like to assure the House that we are doing what we can, at the request of the Maltese Government, to be of some practical assistance, and that when the expert is appointed at the request of the Maltese Government and the report is to hand, we shall study it with great sympathy and understanding in the hope of being of some further practical assistance to Malta. It is quite unnecessary for me to state what financial assistance has been rendered to the Maltese people. That assistance has been considerable but, as I have said, so far as the future is concerned we shall study her problems with sympathy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) raised certain questions about tourism. However practical or unpractical the scheme may be, this matter is one for study by the Maltese Government themselves. The proposal is that the Maltese Government should be responsible for the running of the ships, for the building of the camp and for the general organising of the scheme. In the scheme put to us I see numerous practical difficulties. I have had considerable experience in this field myself; I have been responsible at times for organising cruises in the Mediterranean, and I should like to tell my hon. Friend that he ignores many of the practical problems involved in a project of this kind and that it is not quite so easy as he suggests. For instance, to carry on cruises throughout the whole year, across the Bay of Biscay, particularly in an aircraft carrier, is a proposition that calls for further examination.
I would only add that so far as tourism is concerned this is a matter for the Maltese Government themselves. There is an office in London which has tried to encourage British visitors to Malta. I agree that it is a country of infinite interest, which ought to be a very great holiday rendezvous and one would hope that the facilities for travel will increase, so that


many more people from this country will go and see this extraordinarily interesting and historic territory. We as a Government will give all the help we can to Malta in trying to develop her tourist trade and I should like to thank the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) for his very helpful speech, which will be appreciated in Malta just now.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: Would the right hon. Gentleman indicate any plans which he has in mind to give any scientific help to Malta. He has mentioned various ways in which help could be given and I think another example is the development of hydroponics. If a scientific examination could be made of it it might be of great assistance to Malta. Aircraft services to Malta have been suggested, and the products from hydroponics could be flown from these islands and thus create an export trade for that island and help it increasingly in the provision of employment.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am not qualified to reply to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) except to say that we have made our own technical resources available to Malta in regard to any development plans. We hope that in the discussions which may follow on the report which the experts will present, suggestions of a practical nature may be put forward for examination in order that we may help things along. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough for bringing this matter forward tonight, and I hope the House will have very much fuller information in the course of a few weeks and be able to form a sounder judgment in regard to the state of affairs in Malta.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am sure that with much that the right hon. Gentleman has said the whole House will be in agreement, but there is one particular point about which I feel he

was lukewarm. That was the question of emigration. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty gave us an assurance that the Admiralty would give facilities for the repair of ships in the shipyards at Malta including any ships which the Maltese have for the purpose of emigration and that was a very welcome assurance. I was hoping that the right hon. Gentleman tonight would follow it up, and see if the Admiralty and his Department together could attract work to the dockyards. This is a very important matter for the island inasmuch as it would help considerably in the employment of the Maltese. I hope he will give us a little more assurance on that.

Mr. Creech Jones: That is a matter for the Admiralty itself, but the Colonial Office have made the strongest representations to the Admiralty in respect of maintenance and repair work, suggesting that as much as possible should be diverted to Malta. As the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford pointed out, however, there is at the moment a falling off of employment in many ship-repairing yards, and the problem is very difficult. All that one can suggest is that Malta should not be treated worse than certain of the other overseas dockyards.
In regard to emigration, I can only assure the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) that we have tried to do everything in our power to obtain ships for emigration purposes and to create or add to the existing facilities, because we feel that this is one of the major ways of helping Maltese economy at the present time.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.